Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Transportability & Deployment

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

  • #16
    I was, of course, torn between the M4 and the Tiger II but after many hours of thought came to the conclusion that the M4 should get the nod.

    Excellent- M3, PzIV, PzIII, Pz38T, BT-5, T-34

    Good-Valentine, Crusader, Cromwell, M13, Type 97, Matilda II

    OK-IS-2, Churchill, KV-1, Panther, Char B1, Somua

    Poor- Tiger I, Tiger II
    John

    Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
      I had a tough debate between the Sherman and the PzIII. Eventually I decided based on which one was intended to be good in this category and which one gained the ability by accident. When the Americans were designing tanks in the 30's they had this factor in mind. Any U.S. war would definitely be fought far from the factories making the tanks, so transportability was ever present in the design process. The Germans however, didn't know they would be shipping tanks over a thousand miles away to north africa. On road, rail, over sea and on and off ports. So the PzIII gets a slight edge over the Sherman, and if I could vote for both in the top slot I would.
      We all know where the King Tiger belongs.
      I'm not sure I understand this. I'm pretty bad on history but I know that Africa saw fighting in WWI. It would not be so far fetched to know that some fighting might take place there and with geographical domination a possibility it further makes fighting outside of Europe a good possibility. If Germany did not realize they might be fighting in Africa they certainly could predict fighting deep in the Soviet Union.

      Yes, war elsewhere was always a possibility but many did not want the U.S. involved anywhere again. Our budget for design and production in the early 30's was tiny; to say we were taking transport in mind is a bit of a stretch.

      Lastly I don't understand the general philosophy of your decision. The country that planned the transport of their tank gets less points than the country which just happens to have a tank which is small and easily fits on a ship/railcar?(That tank isn't so bit...fitting it on a ship/railcar is pretty easy). Luck beats out the slide rule? Planning on getting 40,000++ tanks to Africa, Italy, England, France, USSR and all over the south Pacific should, IMHO, take a backseat to no other tank.
      John

      Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

      Comment


      • #18
        M4 all the way here. No other tanks combat actions stretched across the world like the Sherman's did. Every Theater saw the Sherman in action. That alone stands as a rock solid testament to the transportability of the M4 line.
        "You listen to the ol' Pork Chop Express on a dark and stormy night......"

        Comment


        • #19
          Benchmark: M4

          Excellent: M3, PzIII, PzIV,

          Good: T34, Tiger I

          Ok: Various light and early war tanks

          Poor: The super-heavies

          My benchmark was the M4, designed with transport in mind....part of the reason it was difficult to get anything larger or upgunned built in its stead. Had the M4 not been designed to be transported, specifically to be transported by the US assets being built, then it would have lost out to the PzIV for 'value added shipping'.

          The rest I based not only on shipping, but in 'value added shipping'. Sure I can shove 4 PzIIs in the space of 1 Tiger, but the Tiger is a much more potent asset for a wide range of duties. The M3, PzIII, and PzIV all provided value added shipping, meaning that for the weight and bulk you were hauling around you were getting maximum return on your investment in logistics to transport it. Good were the T34 and Tiger I, the first is only good because for its weight/length/width you're not getting a tank materially better than the PzIV the moment it rolls off the docks (I'm sure there will be much hair pulling at that statement). The second because the Tiger I is giving you a lot of value added, despite its added burdens.

          All of the lighter tanks mentioned pretty well fit into Ok. Not a lot of value, but equally not a lot of space or weight. The super heavies, including the Char 1B, are all poor in their ability to be transported.
          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by triggerjockey View Post
            M4 all the way here. No other tanks combat actions stretched across the world like the Sherman's did. Every Theater saw the Sherman in action. That alone stands as a rock solid testament to the transportability of the M4 line.
            Thanks Chad, your vote for the Sherman is registered.
            "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


            • #21
              Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
              Benchmark: M4

              Excellent: M3, PzIII, PzIV,

              Good: T34, Tiger I

              Ok: Various light and early war tanks

              Poor: The super-heavies

              My benchmark was the M4, designed with transport in mind....part of the reason it was difficult to get anything larger or upgunned built in its stead. Had the M4 not been designed to be transported, specifically to be transported by the US assets being built, then it would have lost out to the PzIV for 'value added shipping'.

              The rest I based not only on shipping, but in 'value added shipping'. Sure I can shove 4 PzIIs in the space of 1 Tiger, but the Tiger is a much more potent asset for a wide range of duties. The M3, PzIII, and PzIV all provided value added shipping, meaning that for the weight and bulk you were hauling around you were getting maximum return on your investment in logistics to transport it. Good were the T34 and Tiger I, the first is only good because for its weight/length/width you're not getting a tank materially better than the PzIV the moment it rolls off the docks (I'm sure there will be much hair pulling at that statement). The second because the Tiger I is giving you a lot of value added, despite its added burdens.

              All of the lighter tanks mentioned pretty well fit into Ok. Not a lot of value, but equally not a lot of space or weight. The super heavies, including the Char 1B, are all poor in their ability to be transported.
              Thanks Robert.

              I have interpreted what you say as follows:

              Champion - M4 Medium

              Excellent - M3 Medium, PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IV

              Good - T-34, Tiger I

              OK - Matilda II, Crusader, Valentine, Cromwell, Somua S-35, PzKpfw 38(t), M 13-40, Type 97, BT-5/7

              Poor - Churchill, Char B-1 bis, Panther, Tiger II, KV-1, IS-2

              ... and entered accordingly on the spreadsheet.

              Please let me know if you want any of these changed.

              Also, if you could please place your vote for the M4 Medium in the poll at the head of this thread.
              "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


              • #22
                Correct, and done
                Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                Comment


                • #23
                  If we're talking about transportability within the means of the producing nation, and then being of use when getting there, I selected M4. Otherwise this seems like a shipping equation based on tonnage, available ship hulls, and rail networks.

                  Excellent: M3, T34, BT 5/7, Crusader, Valentine, Cromwell.

                  Good: PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IV, PzKpfw 38(t), KV1, IS2, Churchill, Somua S-35, M13-40, Matilda II.

                  OK: Panther, Tiger I.

                  Poor: CharB, Type 97, Tiger II.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by llkinak View Post
                    If we're talking about transportability within the means of the producing nation, and then being of use when getting there, I selected M4. Otherwise this seems like a shipping equation based on tonnage, available ship hulls, and rail networks.

                    Excellent: M3, T34, BT 5/7, Crusader, Valentine, Cromwell.

                    Good: PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IV, PzKpfw 38(t), KV1, IS2, Churchill, Somua S-35, M13-40, Matilda II.

                    OK: Panther, Tiger I.

                    Poor: CharB, Type 97, Tiger II.
                    Thanks Lance. All entered.
                    "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


                    • #25
                      Time for me to have a go ...

                      ... here's my take for the Transportability/deployment factor, taking into account not only the general strategic transportability of each tank as a vehicle in itself but also (a) the needs of the user nations and (b) the capabilities of those nations to effectively transport and deploy.

                      Champion: PzKpfw 38(t) - receives the full 20 points here.

                      This was not such an easy choice because as you will see from my bracketing, there is a whole bunch of tanks I rate as 'Excellent' for their strategic transport/deployability, taking account of all factors I could think of in each case. The 38(t) started out in my mind as merely another one of those. However, thinking more seriously about the light weight and compact dimensions of this tank; the fact that the principal user (Germany) had the strategic advantage of 'interior lines' so almost all strategic movement was by rail; and that said strategic deployment was capable of being readily met most of the time, clinched it for me.

                      Here are my brackets for this criterion:

                      Excellent (18 points) - M4 Medium, M3 Medium, T-34, BT-5/7, Type 97, M 13-40, PzKpfw IV, PzKpfw III, Somua S-35, Cromwell, Valentine, Crusader, Matilda II.

                      Good (12 points) Char B-1 bis

                      OK (6 points) - Churchill, Panther, KV-1, IS-2

                      Poor (0 points) - Tiger I, Tiger II




                      atilda II, Crusader, Valentine,
                      "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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                        ... here's my take for the Transportability/deployment factor, taking into account not only the general strategic transportability of each tank as a vehicle in itself but also (a) the needs of the user nations and (b) the capabilities of those nations to effectively transport and deploy.

                        Champion: PzKpfw 38(t) - receives the full 20 points here.

                        This was not such an easy choice because as you will see from my bracketing, there is a whole bunch of tanks I rate as 'Excellent' for their strategic transport/deployability, taking account of all factors I could think of in each case. The 38(t) started out in my mind as merely another one of those. However, thinking more seriously about the light weight and compact dimensions of this tank; the fact that the principal user (Germany) had the strategic advantage of 'interior lines' so almost all strategic movement was by rail; and that said strategic deployment was capable of being readily met most of the time, clinched it for me.

                        Here are my brackets for this criterion:

                        Excellent (18 points) - M4 Medium, M3 Medium, T-34, BT-5/7, Type 97, M 13-40, PzKpfw IV, PzKpfw III, Somua S-35, Cromwell, Valentine, Crusader, Matilda II.

                        Good (12 points) Char B-1 bis

                        OK (6 points) - Churchill, Panther, KV-1, IS-2

                        Poor (0 points) - Tiger I, Tiger II




                        atilda II, Crusader, Valentine,
                        Well I have to say I like the thinking and must believe that I used a much different criteria for voting. That being said I am trying to understand how the M4 still made it so high on your rating.
                        John

                        Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JBark View Post
                          Well I have to say I like the thinking and must believe that I used a much different criteria for voting. That being said I am trying to understand how the M4 still made it so high on your rating.
                          The M4 is very high in my rating because I genuinely believe it deserves to be. Although it weighed around three times as much as the PzKpfw 38(t), it first entered combat about three years later and during that time tank weights overall had increased quite substantially. And the 38(t) was on the lighter side even for its time.

                          Also, the Sherman fit perfectly into the US and Allied shipping, transport and logistic systems between late 1942 and the end of the war; and lent itself supremely well to global distribution and deployment as a result. About as well as the 38(t) fitted into the German transport and logistic systems between 1939 and 1942, which was its period of first-line service. So it should also be rememberd here that we are not only looking at two completely different users with very different strategic requirements, but also at two very different periods of the war.
                          "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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                            Although it weighed around three times as much as the PzKpfw 38(t), it first entered combat about three years later and during that time tank weights overall had increased quite substantially. And the 38(t) was on the lighter side even for its time.

                            Also, the Sherman fit perfectly into the US and Allied shipping, transport and logistic systems between late 1942 and the end of the war; and lent itself supremely well to global distribution and deployment as a result. About as well as the 38(t) fitted into the German transport and logistic systems between 1939 and 1942, which was its period of first-line service. So it should also be rememberd here that we are not only looking at two completely different users with very different strategic requirements, but also at two very different periods of the war.
                            Your choice of the 38T made sense to me, as I said, and got me rethinking my own choice and rereading the thread "criteria" in case I didn't read them carefully enough when I made my choice. I'm looking back and seeing I questioned the PzII and am wondering what I was thinking there. When I thought about the difficulty involved in transport I thought about the M4 coming out of Detroit (for example) and being trained to either coast (I know nothing of Great Lakes shipping so I will assume they were not loaded aboard a ship on Lake Erie) where they would then be loaded aboard ships bound for the ATO, MTO, ETO or PTO. If they didn't end up at the bottom of one of the oceans then they would be offloaded and by some other means sent in to combat, possibly on train again, boat again, and landing craft. That sounds like a difficult trip to me and I'm beginning to wonder what I had in mind what I chose the M4. Taking the above into consideration I am simply trying to agree that the Axis tanks often were not going long distances (Africa excluded) by comparison and the Axis surely did not endure the difficulties of the US in this area. This is why I was asking about the M4 and M3 being rated as they were.
                            John

                            Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JBark View Post
                              Your choice of the 38T made sense to me, as I said, and got me rethinking my own choice and rereading the thread "criteria" in case I didn't read them carefully enough when I made my choice. I'm looking back and seeing I questioned the PzII and am wondering what I was thinking there. When I thought about the difficulty involved in transport I thought about the M4 coming out of Detroit (for example) and being trained to either coast (I know nothing of Great Lakes shipping so I will assume they were not loaded aboard a ship on Lake Erie) where they would then be loaded aboard ships bound for the ATO, MTO, ETO or PTO. If they didn't end up at the bottom of one of the oceans then they would be offloaded and by some other means sent in to combat, possibly on train again, boat again, and landing craft. That sounds like a difficult trip to me and I'm beginning to wonder what I had in mind what I chose the M4. Taking the above into consideration I am simply trying to agree that the Axis tanks often were not going long distances (Africa excluded) by comparison and the Axis surely did not endure the difficulties of the US in this area. This is why I was asking about the M4 and M3 being rated as they were.
                              I understand totally where you are coming from with that.

                              In my mind, it's about balancing the various factors in light of the needs of the user nation/s, for the period that the type in question will be in first-line service as a gun tank. All those factors considered, I think the M4 fit Allied needs just about perfectly and its transportability factor was excellent. Don't forget that a tank as light as the 38(t) would not have been able to meet medium tank battlefield requirements during the Sherman's time of combat in WW2 (which is why it had all but fallen out of first-line service by the second half of the war). Even a 20 ton tank would have fallen badly short. Around 30 tons - give or take a few - was the 'sweet spot' for most of the 1942-45 period IMO; if you wanted to combine adequate battlefield capability with a very high transportability factor. The M3, M4 and T-34 all fit within that bracket.
                              Last edited by panther3485; 09 Jun 12, 19:03.
                              "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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                                I understand totally where you are coming from with that.

                                In my mind, it's about balancing the various factors in light of the needs of the user nation/s, for the period that the type in question will be in first-line service as a gun tank. All those factors considered, I think the M4 fit Allied needs just about perfectly and its transportability factor was excellent. Don't forget that a tank as light as the 38(t) would not have been able to meet medium tank battlefield requirements during the Sherman's time of combat in WW2 (which is why it had all but fallen out of first-line service by the second half of the war). Even a 20 ton tank would have fallen badly short. Around 30 tons - give or take a few - was the 'sweet spot' for most of the 1942-45 period IMO; if you wanted to combine adequate battlefield capability with a very high transportability factor. The M3, M4 and T-34 all fit within that bracket.
                                I see your thinking.
                                John

                                Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X