Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Protection & Survivability

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

  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
    Then just judge them on their armor.
    I'm tired, maybe later!

    Leave a comment:


  • smallvillekalel
    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.
    Then just judge them on their armor.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • smallvillekalel
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    looks like a bit of a mix-up here?

    Originally posted by wellsfargo View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
    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)S-35
    16 (10)38t
    17 (8)BT-7
    18 (6)Type 97
    19 (4)Crusader
    20 (2)M-13
    21 (0)Cromwell


    Matilda II wins over the rest because this tank was built to survive combat, it had a shorter profile, good armor on top for its day(anti-air protection), and despite sacrificing speed for armour, was faster than her only enemy...the 88. Also, she held this advantage for quite a while.

    I figure not many will like seeing the Cromwell at the bottom of the list, but I think thats where she belongs. This system simply gave up way too much armor for an unneccessarily high speed. Her power to weight ratio doubles the entire rest of the field(save the BT-7), telling me there was plenty of room for upgrades. And considering its era(mid-late war)a 25mm hull front is dispicable, especially since it was an extremely boxy design.
    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.
    Last edited by panther3485; 25 Apr 12, 10:22.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    Benchmark: Matilda II

    Excellent: Char B1 bis, KV-1, Tiger I, IS-2, Tiger II,
    Churchill
    Good: Valentine, Somua S-35, Panther, T-34 (76 and 85 combined), M4 Medium (all versions combined), Cromwell, PzKpfw 38(t), Type 97 Chi-Ha
    PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IV (short & long guns combined)
    OK: M3 Medium, BT-5/7,

    Poor: Crusader, M 13-40/14-41/15-42

    Matilda II, as it was the earliest with the heaviest.

    I couldn't decide if the Churchill was excellent or good, so I put it in its own class of really good.

    Likewise, the Pz III & IV were both quite rubbish to begin with, never had great ballistic shape, so they fell between good and OK.

    The M-3 medium was a big, tall box and needed more armour than it had. The BT-5/7 were designed in 1932, so I cut them some slack.

    The Crusader traded armour for speed, and the M-13 et al., just had problems with bad steel and inadequate thickness.
    Onya brod, figures are in. I put the Churchill in for 36 points.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Brumbear View Post
    Matilda 2 was impervious to almost everything in it's time so was the KV1 but I also decided on the matilda.
    Excellent (36) - KV-1, Tiger 1 and 2, Churchill, Char B1-bis,

    Good (24) - Panther, Valentine, Souma S-35,

    OK (12) - T-34, M4, M3, PzIII and IV, Crusader, Cromwell, PzKpfw 38(t),IS 2

    Poor (0) - M 13-40/14-41/15-42, BT-5/7, Type 97 Chi-Ha.
    Registered Dave, thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    Decided to go Matilda 2. Not quite as thick armour as the KV-1, but immune to all the same weapons (ie the vast majority of them) and a much smaller target.

    Excellent (36) - KV-1, Tiger 1 and 2, Churchill, Char B1-bis

    Good (24) - Panther, Valentine, Souma S-35, IS-2

    OK (12) - T-34, M4, M3, PzIII and IV, Crusader, Cromwell, PzKpfw 38(t)

    Poor (0) - M 13-40/14-41/15-42, BT-5/7, Type 97 Chi-Ha.
    Thanks Nick, all on the sheet now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
    Did that go for the nose only or the entire hull front? I did find the 101mm up-armored version on ww2vehicles.com, but it also stated only 64 were made, making my judgment based on the more prevalent lighter armored version. If I were to count the 101mm version, I don't think I would rate it too much higher, as it seems the sides, top and rear were still light(correct me if I'm wrong). And at 600hp and an increase to 28tons, the p/w ratio only goes down to 21.4. If these angles weren't so boxy(90 degrees throughout) the thin armor would seem to have more justification.

    Didn't get to go to the library this week yet(rearranging the entire house and buying new furniture throughout this week), but I have tables on paper from past research. Since the poll started I have updated my old tables using data from websites(the cheap way)like ACG, onwar.com, militaryfactory.com, ww2vehicles.com...etc...

    I don't claim to be an expert in this field by any stretch, but I sure am learning alot. And thanks for the useful critiques. But don't worry, I know the difference between constructive criticism and a condescending know it all!
    For British tanks, and US lend-lease vehicles, the following site is spot on :http://www.wwiiequipment.com/

    Leave a comment:


  • wellsfargo
    replied
    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”

    Leave a comment:


  • smallvillekalel
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    I agree with your list almost 100%.

    The Cromwell had up to 101mm on hull and turret front in welded versions. May I ask your source for some of your tanks? I've picked up a few bogus books on tanks in my time, and perhaps direct you to a few decent ones. As an alternative ask Panther 3485 who is probably the greatest authority here on the subject of tabks .

    Hope I don't come across as condescending here .

    Did that go for the nose only or the entire hull front? I did find the 101mm up-armored version on ww2vehicles.com, but it also stated only 64 were made, making my judgment based on the more prevalent lighter armored version. If I were to count the 101mm version, I don't think I would rate it too much higher, as it seems the sides, top and rear were still light(correct me if I'm wrong). And at 600hp and an increase to 28tons, the p/w ratio only goes down to 21.4. If these angles weren't so boxy(90 degrees throughout) the thin armor would seem to have more justification.

    Didn't get to go to the library this week yet(rearranging the entire house and buying new furniture throughout this week), but I have tables on paper from past research. Since the poll started I have updated my old tables using data from websites(the cheap way)like ACG, onwar.com, militaryfactory.com, ww2vehicles.com...etc...

    I don't claim to be an expert in this field by any stretch, but I sure am learning alot. And thanks for the useful critiques. But don't worry, I know the difference between constructive criticism and a condescending know it all!

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
    Leader--Matilda II



    2 (38)KV-1
    3 (36)Tiger II
    4 (34)Tiger Il
    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)S-35
    16 (10)38t
    17 (8)BT-7
    18 (6)Type 97
    19 (4)Crusader
    20 (2)M-13
    21 (0)Cromwell


    Matilda II wins over the rest because this tank was built to survive combat, it had a shorter profile, good armor on top for its day(anti-air protection), and despite sacrificing speed for armour, was faster than her only enemy...the 88. Also, she held this advantage for quite a while.

    I figure not many will like seeing the Cromwell at the bottom of the list, but I think thats where she belongs. This system simply gave up way too much armor for an unneccessarily high speed. Her power to weight ratio doubles the entire rest of the field(save the BT-7), telling me there was plenty of room for upgrades. And considering its era(mid-late war)a 25mm hull front is dispicable, especially since it was an extremely boxy design.
    I agree with your list almost 100%.

    The Cromwell had up to 101mm on hull and turret front in welded versions. May I ask your source for some of your tanks? I've picked up a few bogus books on tanks in my time, and perhaps direct you to a few decent ones. As an alternative ask Panther 3485 who is probably the greatest authority here on the subject of tabks .

    Hope I don't come across as condescending here .

    Leave a comment:


  • smallvillekalel
    replied
    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)S-35
    16 (10)38t
    17 (8)BT-7
    18 (6)Type 97
    19 (4)Crusader
    20 (2)M-13
    21 (0)Cromwell


    Matilda II wins over the rest because this tank was built to survive combat, it had a shorter profile, good armor on top for its day(anti-air protection), and despite sacrificing speed for armour, was faster than her only enemy...the 88. Also, she held this advantage for quite a while.

    I figure not many will like seeing the Cromwell at the bottom of the list, but I think thats where she belongs. This system simply gave up way too much armor for an unneccessarily high speed. Her power to weight ratio doubles the entire rest of the field(save the BT-7), telling me there was plenty of room for upgrades. And considering its era(mid-late war)a 25mm hull front is dispicable, especially since it was an extremely boxy design.
    Last edited by smallvillekalel; 25 Apr 12, 03:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • broderickwells
    replied
    Benchmark: Matilda II

    Excellent: Char B1 bis, KV-1, Tiger I, IS-2, Tiger II,
    Churchill
    Good: Valentine, Somua S-35, Panther, T-34 (76 and 85 combined), M4 Medium (all versions combined), Cromwell, PzKpfw 38(t), Type 97 Chi-Ha
    PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IV (short & long guns combined)
    OK: M3 Medium, BT-5/7,

    Poor: Crusader, M 13-40/14-41/15-42

    Matilda II, as it was the earliest with the heaviest.

    I couldn't decide if the Churchill was excellent or good, so I put it in its own class of really good.

    Likewise, the Pz III & IV were both quite rubbish to begin with, never had great ballistic shape, so they fell between good and OK.

    The M-3 medium was a big, tall box and needed more armour than it had. The BT-5/7 were designed in 1932, so I cut them some slack.

    The Crusader traded armour for speed, and the M-13 et al., just had problems with bad steel and inadequate thickness.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X