Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Protection & Survivability

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

  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by FrankieJames7 View Post
    i would have to say it was clearly one of the late model IS series, they were killing tiger 2's at 600 yards when a tiger had to be at 400 yards. this is mostly because the IS had a 122mm cannon but a good defense is a good offense
    Hi FrankieJames,

    Firstly, a warm welcome to ACG.

    Thanks for your thoughts. Unfortunately, these tank polls closed a few years ago but I can imagine that you would probably have enjoyed voting in them; had you been a member at that time.

    A new set of tank polls is likely to come up in the relatively near future (that is, within the next year or so) and we are also thinking of one on warships prior to that. I don't know how far your interests go but we like to have something for everyone here.

    Best regards,
    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankieJames7
    replied
    i would have to say it was clearly one of the late model IS series, they were killing tiger 2's at 600 yards when a tiger had to be at 400 yards. this is mostly because the IS had a 122mm cannon but a good defense is a good offense

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Final Scores for 'Protection & Survivability'

    Final Scores for the 'Protection & Survivability' poll:


    1st - Tiger I (37.3)
    2nd - Tiger II (37.1)
    3rd - KV-1 (35.1)
    4th - Matilda II (35.8)
    5th - Churchill (35)
    6th - Char B-1 bis (31.6)
    7th - IS-2 (29.8)
    8th - Panther (28.4)
    9th - T-34 (22.7)
    10th - M4 Medium (19.7)
    11th - Valentine (19.3)
    12th - PzKpfw IV (18.3)
    13th - Somua S-35 (17.8)
    14th - Cromwell (17.7)
    15th - PzKpfw III (15.5)
    16th - M3 Medium (14.2)
    17th - PzKpfw 38(t) (11)
    18th - BT-5/7 (7.2)
    19th - Type 97 (6)
    20th - Crusader (5.8)
    21st - M13-40 (0.5)


    Comments:

    I find this interesting, in that members have obviously given some careful thought to the period of first-line service and not simply plumped for the thickest armour. They have also considered survivability at least to some extent; not just the primary protection afforded by armour. For the most part, I think this has shaken down fairly well but I would differ on a few of the placings. For example, the protection and survivability factors for Crusader would not, IMO, have been any lower than for PzKpfw 38(t) at the least. There are at least one or two others I might quibble about but I'll see what you guys think of these placings.
    Last edited by panther3485; 12 Aug 12, 02:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Thanks Chris, all entered.

    Leave a comment:


  • DogDodger
    replied
    I'll go with Tiger I here for its longevity and the effectiveness of its armor throughout its service life. It was first manufactured in mid-1942, but was a fearsome sight on the battlefield right to the end of the war, when the majority of enemy tank guns would still find it troubling.

    Excellent: Tiger II, KV-1, Churchill, Matilda II (very good for a short period, but solved by the long 5 cm gun), IS-2, Char B
    Good: Panther, SOMUA
    OK: M3, M4, Pz.Kpfw.III, Pz.Kpfw.IV, Cromwell, T-34, Valentine (decent armor, but some models were riveted)
    Poor: Pz.Kpfw.38(t), BT, M13/40, Type 97, Crusader

    Leave a comment:


  • dutched
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    No.
    OK.

    Ed.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by dutched View Post
    As ridiculous as it sounds you are undoubtedly right. Just think: As nobody can get in it, nobody can get hurt inside.
    Where do you get these crackers from? Sounds like something Groucho Marx would come up with.

    Ed.

    John, your post has nothin' to do with my ranking of the M 4 has not it?
    No.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by dutched View Post
    Protection and survivability:

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

    The usual caveat applies, the more hatches the weaker armour protection.

    Bench mark Tiger II.
    Thanks Ed. Since rankings based on the Incremental Scale system are valid for this criterion and you have offered them here, I have entered your scores in that fashion.

    Leave a comment:


  • dutched
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    The tank with no hatches should be the safest...right?
    As ridiculous as it sounds you are undoubtedly right. Just think: As nobody can get in it, nobody can get hurt inside.
    Where do you get these crackers from? Sounds like something Groucho Marx would come up with.

    Ed.

    John, your post has nothin' to do with my ranking of the M 4 has not it?

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by dutched View Post
    Protection and survivability:

    The usual caveat applies, the more hatches the weaker armour protection.
    The tank with no hatches should be the safest...right?

    Leave a comment:


  • dutched
    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.
    Is not there a tiny floor hatch on the Tiger II, under the radio operator's seat?

    Ed.

    Leave a comment:


  • dutched
    replied
    Protection and survivability:

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

    The usual caveat applies, the more hatches the weaker armour protection.

    Bench mark Tiger II.

    Excellent: IS-2, Tiger I, Churchill, KV I, Pzkfw V, Matilda II, Char B.
    Good: T-34, Valentine, Pzkfw III, Cromwell.
    Ok: Sherman, Type 97, Somua S35, Pzkfw IV, M3
    Poor: M13/40M14/41M15/42, BT 5/7, Pzkfw 38 (t), Crusader.

    Ed.
    Last edited by dutched; 21 Jun 12, 15:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    I finally decided to get off my arse and vote this one. My top mark went to the Tiger II. I thought about what others were saying about the Matilda but felt the it rated so high because it could survive at a time when the enemy was not fielding incredibly powerful AT guns. Its reign was short as well and when the Germans pulled out the 88's it was all over.

    Excellent - Tiger I,Panther, IS-2, KV-1, Matilda

    Good - M4, T-34,PzIII, Churchill, Char B1, PzIV

    OK - M3, Cromwell, Valentine, Bt-5, Somua S-35, Crusader, Pz38T, Valentine

    Poor - M13-40, Type 97
    Thanks John, all entered on the spreadsheet. I believe that is 11 out of the 12 polls you have completed now?

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    I finally decided to get off my arse and vote this one. My top mark went to the Tiger II. I thought about what others were saying about the Matilda but felt the it rated so high because it could survive at a time when the enemy was not fielding incredibly powerful AT guns. Its reign was short as well and when the Germans pulled out the 88's it was all over.

    Excellent - Tiger I,Panther, IS-2, KV-1, Matilda

    Good - M4, T-34,PzIII, Churchill, Char B1, PzIV

    OK - M3, Cromwell, Valentine, Bt-5, Somua S-35, Crusader, Pz38T, Valentine

    Poor - M13-40, Type 97

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    For this one, I'm going somewhat against the trend and my vote for the #1 champion/benchmark under this criterion is Churchill.

    IMO, Churchill had the best combination of primary and secondary protection (i.e. survivability), for the longest period of time during the war. A few tanks beat it for primary protection; and the very late M4 medium, with wet jacket stowage, is a highly probable top contender for survivability after penetration; but I can think of no tank that bests the Churchill for its combination here.

    The others I am grading using the incremental scale - with short comment for the 'heavies' - as follows:

    2 (38) KV-1 (on a 'firstest with the very mostest' basis )
    3 (36) Tiger I (longest with the best primary, + good secondary)
    4 (34) Tiger II (ultimate in frontal primary protection + good secondary)
    5 (32) Matilda II (king of protection in the West, for a time)
    6 (30) IS-2 (Very high primary despite iffy/variable armour quality)
    7 (28) Char B1 bis (exceptionally well protected for 39-40)
    8 (26) Panther
    9 (24) T-34
    10 (22) M4 Medium
    11 (20) Valentine
    12 (18) PzKpfw III
    13 (16) PzKpfw IV
    14 (14) Cromwell
    15 (12) Somua S-35
    16 (10) M3 Medium
    17 (8) Crusader
    18 (6) Type 97
    19 (4) BT-5/7
    20 (2) PzKpfw 38(t)
    21 (0) M 13-40/14-41/15-42

    Last edited by panther3485; 17 Jun 12, 00:45.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X