Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Protection & Survivability

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

  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    Perhaps, but extraordinarily high crew survival rates for an assault tank speaks volumes.
    I don't doubt the protection level and higher survival rate. I offer it simply as factor which might help one go one way or the other. When I saw the drawing I remembered reading that Tal designed the Merkava with crew survival as a top priority and put it up front.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    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).
    The multiple question marks mean I am questioning my own recollection. Remember what I told you. I'll look in to it with what little I have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
    Yeide's The Infantry's Armor and Gilbert's Marine Tank Battles in the Pacific would be good places to start. There's also Salecker's Rolling Thunder against the Rising Sun; that one's on my shelf but it's still in line to read.
    Just ordered Yeide's book as under £15 inc p&p . +1 shortly.

    Leave a comment:


  • DogDodger
    replied
    Yeide's The Infantry's Armor and Gilbert's Marine Tank Battles in the Pacific would be good places to start. There's also Salecker's Rolling Thunder against the Rising Sun; that one's on my shelf but it's still in line to read.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    Only the ones fighting in East Asia/the Pacific.
    I must admit to knowing next to nothing about tank actions in Burma. As for Shermans when assaulting the Pacific islands, I got the impression that losses were very high, not due to enemy tanks, but due to mines, at guns etc. Pleased to be educated here. Anyone recommend a book on M4's in the PTO?

    Leave a comment:


  • broderickwells
    replied
    Only the ones fighting in East Asia/the Pacific.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by wellsfargo View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
    I'm tired, maybe later!
    There's no hurry, Exo. Relax and take your time; these polls are open for three months yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
    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.
    Last edited by panther3485; 29 Apr 12, 06:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • wellsfargo
    replied
    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”

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X