Greatest/Best Tank - Protection & Survivability

[panther3485]

looks like a bit of a mix-up here?

2Mobility (40) T-34
Excellent (36) M4 Churchill Panther Cromwell Matilda II Tiger I PzKpfw IV

Good (24) Tiger II PzKpfw III Crusader IS-2 M3 KV-1

OK (12) Valentine PzKpfw 38T BT 5/7

Poor (0) M13-14 Char B-1 Somua S-35 Type 97

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

Martin, it looks as if you've posted your Mobility vote and placings on the Protection & Survivability poll.

Please tell me what your vote for #1 place in this poll (Protection & Surviviability) should have been, along with your preferred placings. I don't think I can change your vote on the ACG poll here but since it seems to have been a genuine error, I can put down whatever you really would have voted for on the spreadsheet. (Everyone else please note: This is not 'carte blanche' for anyone to change their mind about their main vote. I'm offering this to Martin only because of an apparent genuine error.)

After we've fixed all of this, then if you want me to apply what you've put here to the Mobility poll, I can do that too.

[smallvillekalel]

Cheers David, good to see the incremental scale being confidently used. All entered on the spreadsheet now.

The last bit about the Cromwell, though ... I've got serious doubts about the accuracy of the thickness figure you've provided.

I've got the following for Cromwell IV, from the first book I picked off the shelf:

Hull

Hull front 57mm
Superstructure front 63mm
'Glacis' (steeply sloped plate between hull & superstructure front) 30mm
Hull sides 25mm + 14mm (cavity for Christie springs)
Superstructure sides 32mm
Hull rear 32mm
Hull belly 8mm
Superstructure deck 20mm

Turret

Front 76mm
Sides 63mm
Rear 57mm
Roof 20mm

Page 87, 'World War II Tanks', Eric Grove, Orbis Publishing, 1976

My understanding is that there were some armour variations with different models of Cromwell but I think the above can be taken as reasonably representative.

IIRC without checking my books, some variants if not all of the Crusader cruiser tank, had better than 25mm on at least a portion of their frontal aspect (about 40mm seems to come to mind); and Crusader was considerably earlier in active service. Somehow I couldn't see the British going backwards in protection with a later model cruiser.

Yes, after some improved research, I've found the Cromwell to have much better protection than I thought. Her side armor is still a little weak, but nothing warranting a zero score.

Here is my updated list.

Leader--Matilda II



2 (38)KV-1
3 (36)Tiger II
4 (34)Tiger I
5 (32)T-34
6 (30)Panther
7 (28)Churchill
8 (26)IS-2
9 (24)Char B1 bis
10 (22)Valentine
11 (20)M3
12 (18)Sherman
13 (16)PzIV
14 (14)PzIII
15 (12)Cromwell
16 (10)S-35
17 (8)38t
18 (6)BT-7
19 (4)Type-97
20 (2)Crusader
21 (0)M-13

[The Exorcist]

I don't know enough about this to judge every tank.
Torsion bars mean no floor escape hatch, so the Tigers are out, the tiny hatches on Russian and Italian tanks tell against them... French tanks don't even have a hatch on top of the turret!

Ah, but the Mark IV has a good silhouette, good armor and hatches all over the place, even between the treads.
That's number one.

The rest, I can't really say.

[smallvillekalel]

I don't know enough about this to judge every tank.
Torsion bars mean no floor escape hatch, so the Tigers are out, the tiny hatches on Russian and Italian tanks tell against them... French tanks don't even have a hatch on top of the turret!

Ah, but the Mark IV has a good silhouette, good armor and hatches all over the place, even between the treads.
That's number one.

The rest, I can't really say.

Then just judge them on their armor.

[The Exorcist]

Then just judge them on their armor.

I'm tired, maybe later!

[wellsfargo]

3. Protection & Survivability (40) Tiger

Excellent (36) T-34 Char B-1 Panther Tiger II Churchill M4

Good (24) Kv-1 PzPfw Iv Matilda II Cromwell IS-2

OK 12) BT 5/7 M3 PzKpfw 38T PzKpfw III Valentine Crusader

Poor (0) Type 97 Somua S35 M13-14

My new up dated (my error) for 3 # Protection

Thanks for the Check 2 # Mobility is OK……..

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

[panther3485]

I don't know enough about this to judge every tank.
Torsion bars mean no floor escape hatch, so the Tigers are out, the tiny hatches on Russian and Italian tanks tell against them... French tanks don't even have a hatch on top of the turret!

Ah, but the Mark IV has a good silhouette, good armor and hatches all over the place, even between the treads.
That's number one.

The rest, I can't really say.

Just a point on Tiger II, it did have a floor escape hatch. However, Tiger I and Panther did not. (It would have been especially difficult in Panther with the double torsion bars.)

Thanks anyway, your primary vote for PzKpfw IV has been recorded.

There's no obligation to make placings for the remaining 20 tanks on all 12 poll threads. So, feel free to do the placings only on the criteria you feel sufficiently confident about and leave the rest if you like. The minimum being asked, if you want to make placings anywhere, is to ensure that you have exercised your #1 vote on all 12.

[Nick the Noodle]

Then just judge them on their armor.

If you don't know enough about tanks, this is probably the way to go, taking the year in service into account of course.

It should be noted that by 45 German armour quality had deteriorated, armour quality on early British tanks was often suspect, and Soviet armour could be inconsistant at any time, except right at the beginning of the war, when it was excellent. The Soviets remarked that the British infantry tanks received vis L-L had better quality armour, since metal flakes and scabs did not effect the crew upon a non penetrating hit.

Some tanks had poor armour arrangements, with shot traps, eg Crusader, or rivets (cheaper than welding, but lowers crew survivability). Soviet tanks tended to excell in armour layout.

As for survivability, escape hatches are important. A tank that is penetrated will tend to have one fatality, ie where the round came in, and one wounded from secondary effects. Some tanks with fewer escape hatches, eg IS-2, will suffer higher casualties if exits are blocked by wounded crew.

Almost all tanks will burn when hit. It's the speed at which they brew up that determines if additional casualties are likely. Panthers and most M4's appear to suffer from this. Armoured bins and wet stowage helps here, as shown by the M4. Automatic fire extinguishers also play a part.

Its only by looking at every tank, and taking their circumstances into account, can we truly judge the best at a particular category. I can speak for the crew survivability of Churchills, and lack of same for IS-2 crews, but for most other tanks, I'm making educated guesses at best.

[panther3485]

I'm tired, maybe later!

There's no hurry, Exo. Relax and take your time; these polls are open for three months yet.

[panther3485]

3. Protection & Survivability (40) Tiger

Excellent (36) T-34 Char B-1 Panther Tiger II Churchill M4

Good (24) Kv-1 PzPfw Iv Matilda II Cromwell IS-2

OK 12) BT 5/7 M3 PzKpfw 38T PzKpfw III Valentine Crusader

Poor (0) Type 97 Somua S35 M13-14

My new up dated (my error) for 3 # Protection

Thanks for the Check 2 # Mobility is OK……..

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

Thanks Martin, all fixed now.

[JBark]

If you don't know enough about tanks, this is probably the way to go, taking the year in service into account of course.

It should be noted that by 45 German armour quality had deteriorated, armour quality on early British tanks was often suspect, and Soviet armour could be inconsistant at any time, except right at the beginning of the war, when it was excellent. The Soviets remarked that the British infantry tanks received vis L-L had better quality armour, since metal flakes and scabs did not effect the crew upon a non penetrating hit.

Some tanks had poor armour arrangements, with shot traps, eg Crusader, or rivets (cheaper than welding, but lowers crew survivability). Soviet tanks tended to excell in armour layout.

As for survivability, escape hatches are important. A tank that is penetrated will tend to have one fatality, ie where the round came in, and one wounded from secondary effects. Some tanks with fewer escape hatches, eg IS-2, will suffer higher casualties if exits are blocked by wounded crew.

Almost all tanks will burn when hit. It's the speed at which they brew up that determines if additional casualties are likely. Panthers and most M4's appear to suffer from this. Armoured bins and wet stowage helps here, as shown by the M4. Automatic fire extinguishers also play a part.

Its only by looking at every tank, and taking their circumstances into account, can we truly judge the best at a particular category. I can speak for the crew survivability of Churchills, and lack of same for IS-2 crews, but for most other tanks, I'm making educated guesses at best.

Good post. I would add a thought or two.
-There are tanks which have no firewall between engine and crew, IIRC. T-34???
-While the Churchill had thick armor the lack of transmission in the front takes away a level of protection for the crew.

[Nick the Noodle]

Good post. I would add a thought or two.
-There are tanks which have no firewall between engine and crew, IIRC. T-34???
-While the Churchill had thick armor the lack of transmission in the front takes away a level of protection for the crew.

Perhaps, but extraordinarily high crew survival rates for an assault tank speaks volumes. Churchills were extremely popular tanks to be in, down to armour, slow burning and plenty of escape hatches as far as survival was concerned. 9th RTR took 79 fatalities in the whole NWE camapign including a 100+ day continuous stint in combat. That is remarkably low, and many Churchill units suffered even fewer.

I almost gave the Churchill top spot, but felt that tanks like the KV-1 and Matilda 2 had almost impregnable armour when introduced, and thus should be above it.

[panther3485]

Good post. I would add a thought or two.
-There are tanks which have no firewall between engine and crew, IIRC. T-34???
-While the Churchill had thick armor the lack of transmission in the front takes away a level of protection for the crew.

Three different longitudinal cross-sectional scale drawings in Baryatinskiy's volume on the T-34 (one on page 19; the second on page 42; the third on page 52), for different models of T-34/76, all clearly show a "firewall" (described as a 'bulkhead' in the book).

[Nick the Noodle]

Perhaps, but extraordinarily high crew survival rates for an assault tank speaks volumes. Churchills were extremely popular tanks to be in, down to armour, slow burning and plenty of escape hatches as far as survival was concerned. 9th RTR took 79 fatalities in the whole NWE camapign including a 100+ day continuous stint in combat. That is remarkably low, and many Churchill units suffered even fewer.

I almost gave the Churchill top spot, but felt that tanks like the KV-1 and Matilda 2 had almost impregnable armour when introduced, and thus should be above it.

Just checked Tank Tracks, and fatalities were only 68. How many non Churchill tank regiments can state that for months of continuous combat?

[broderickwells]

Only the ones fighting in East Asia/the Pacific.