Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Protection & Survivability

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

  • Greatest/Best Tank - Protection & Survivability

    Tips for Participants

    If you have not already done so, for an outline explanation of what is going on and how the polling and scoring processes will work please consult the Master Thread (Mega-Poll - Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 - Master Thread) and read the first three posts I have placed there, before beginning your participation in the 12 polls:

    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=122093

    After you've read those first three posts (or if you've already done so), you are ready to start on the 12 poll threads.

    When you enter the poll threads, don't forget to read the Criteria Information (post #2 on each thread) for information on what's covered by that particular criterion; and precise details you'll need to register your score for all 21 of the tanks.
    46
    Matilda II
    15.22%
    7
    Crusader
    0.00%
    0
    Churchill
    6.52%
    3
    Valentine
    0.00%
    0
    Cromwell
    0.00%
    0
    Somua S-35
    0.00%
    0
    Char B-1 bis
    2.17%
    1
    PzKpfw 38(t)
    0.00%
    0
    PzKpfw III
    2.17%
    1
    PzKpfw IV (short & long guns combined)
    2.17%
    1
    Tiger I
    19.57%
    9
    Panther
    4.35%
    2
    Tiger II
    34.78%
    16
    M 13-40/14-41/15-42
    0.00%
    0
    Type 97 Chi-Ha
    0.00%
    0
    BT-5/7
    0.00%
    0
    T-34 (76 and 85 combined)
    2.17%
    1
    KV-1
    6.52%
    3
    IS-2
    4.35%
    2
    M3 Medium
    0.00%
    0
    M4 Medium (all versions combined)
    0.00%
    0

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by panther3485; 22 Apr 12, 13:59.
    "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

  • #2
    Criteria Information


    Welcome to the Protection & Survivability Poll; one of twelve polls where you will have the opportunity to help decide the greatest/best tank of WW2, as determined by our ACG membership.
    You are also invited to discuss/debate the protection & survivability attributes of all 21 tanks in this particular thread.


    3. Protection & Survivability (max 40 points)

    At the most obvious level, this is the degree of primary protection offered by the thickness, layout, slopes and curves of a tank's armour.
    However, a number of other factors come into play for protection and crew survivability, including:

    The quality of the armour
    Methods of fabrication & assembly (rolling, casting, riveting, welding etc) and the extent to which these affected overall strength, integrity and effectiveness of the armour shell and, in turn ...
    Possible negative effects of non-penetrating hits (e.g. spalling and loosened rivets)
    Features or design flaws that either enhanced or compromised the effectiveness of the armour
    Measures adopted to minimize the effects of a penetration (e.g. ammo stowage and fire control)
    Ease and safety of exit from the vehicle


    All Participants

    If you have not already done so, please vote for the one tank that you believe measures up best against this criterion.

    Level 2 Participants Only

    Now, rate the remaining 20 tanks using your choice of options (a) or (b)

    Option (a), Brackets

    Please rate the remaining 20 tanks by placing each of them into one of the brackets below:

    In your opinion, compared to other tanks during its period of first-line service, was the protection & survivability of the tank ...

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

    Option (b), Incremental Scale

    Please rate the remaining 20 tanks in descending order of merit (best at the top, worst at the bottom) against the following scale ...

    2 (38)
    3 (36)
    4 (34)
    5 (32)
    6 (30)
    7 (28)
    8 (26)
    9 (24)
    10 (22)
    11 (20)
    12 (18)
    13 (16)
    14 (14)
    15 (12)
    16 (10)
    17 (8)
    18 (6)
    19 (4)
    20 (2)
    21 (0)
    Last edited by panther3485; 27 Apr 12, 12:11.
    "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

    Comment


    • #3
      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.
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm thinking of putting the Matilda II on top also. I remember reading this true story somewhere(quote is not exact).A British POW in Africa is brought to the nearest officer with a complaint
        It's quite unfair of you Gerry's to use anti-aircraft guns against our tanks!
        The officer replies
        Is it not equally unfair of you Tommy's to use tanks which only an anti aircraft gun will penetrate?
        "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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, 04:39.
              "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

              Comment


              • #8
                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 .
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                Comment


                • #9
                  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!
                  "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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/
                      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.
                        "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.
                          "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.
                            "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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, 11:22.
                              "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X