Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Transportability & Deployment

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

  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by dutched View Post
    Voted: Panzer 38(t)

    Excellent: Valentine, Panzer III, Panzer IV, M13/40, M4, Somua S35, Type 97 Medium, Crusader, BT 5/7.
    Good: Cromwell, Matilda II, M3 Medium, T34, Char b, M4 Medium
    OK: IS-2, KV-1, , Panther. Churchill
    Poor: Tiger I, Tiger II

    When it come to transportability, it is all about size and weight. The other considerations hold very little value. The larger the clumsier to fit within
    the standard transportation systems. Weight has it's own problems. But by and large as far as these vehicles are concerned the heaviest were also the largest.
    The point put forward that a certain vehicle was specially designed with transportability in mind.
    They all were.
    There is nothing new under the sun
    Point in case. Why did the Tiger have transportation tracks? Why where the airintakes on the Churchill removable? Exactly. Hence my vote for the Panzer 38 (t)

    Ed.
    Thanks Ed. You appear to have the M4 in both the 'Excellent' and the 'Good' brackets? Or is the first one a typo?

    Leave a comment:


  • dutched
    replied
    Voted: Panzer 38(t)

    Excellent: Valentine, Panzer III, Panzer IV, M13/40, M4, Somua S35, Type 97 Medium, Crusader, BT 5/7.
    Good: Cromwell, Matilda II, M3 Medium, T34, Char b, M4 Medium
    OK: IS-2, KV-1, , Panther. Churchill
    Poor: Tiger I, Tiger II

    When it come to transportability, it is all about size and weight. The other considerations hold very little value. The larger the clumsier to fit within
    the standard transportation systems. Weight has it's own problems. But by and large as far as these vehicles are concerned the heaviest were also the largest.
    The point put forward that a certain vehicle was specially designed with transportability in mind.
    They all were.
    There is nothing new under the sun
    Point in case. Why did the Tiger have transportation tracks? Why where the airintakes on the Churchill removable? Exactly. Hence my vote for the Panzer 38 (t)

    Ed.
    Last edited by dutched; 25 Jun 12, 14:17.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by 97th Foot View Post
    Voted: M4.

    Excellent: Valentine, PzKpfw 38(t), M13-14 M4, Somua S35, Type 97.

    Good: PzKpfw III , PzKpfw IV, Churchill, Cromwell, Matilda II, M3, BT-5/7, T34.

    OK: IS-2, KV-1, Crusader, Panther.

    Poor: Char B-1 bis, Tiger I, Tiger II.
    Cheers Neil, all recorded on the spreadsheet.

    Leave a comment:


  • 97th Foot
    replied
    Voted: M4.

    Excellent: Valentine, PzKpfw 38(t), M13-14 M4, Somua S35, Type 97.

    Good: PzKpfw III , PzKpfw IV, Churchill, Cromwell, Matilda II, M3, BT-5/7, T34.

    OK: IS-2, KV-1, Crusader, Panther.

    Poor: Char B-1 bis, Tiger I, Tiger II.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Javaman View Post
    "Do the variants count? ... "
    If you mean variants other than gun tank types, no, as a general rule we are not counting them.
    In these polls, we are being asked to consider only the tanks proper. Derivatives and variants built for other roles - such as tank destroyers, SP guns etc - should not to be taken into consideration.
    The only exception to this is poll #9, 'Value to Allied/Axis Cause'. Under this criterion only, I am asking members to take other AFVs based on the same chassis, and used during WW2, into account.
    (See post #2 on that poll thread): http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=122155

    Last edited by panther3485; 11 Jun 12, 06:02.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by Javaman View Post
    Do the variants count? 2600 Hetzers, 1500 or so Marder III? All of those were quite capable of destroying enemy tanks until the end of the war.
    Greatest/Best TANK should rule them out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Javaman
    replied
    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).
    Do the variants count? 2600 Hetzers, 1500 or so Marder III? All of those were quite capable of destroying enemy tanks until the end of the war.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    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,

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • llkinak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X