Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Transportability & Deployment

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

  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Correct, and done

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • triggerjockey
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
    Winner---PzIII


    Excellent (18)M4 Sherman, S-35, Bt-7, PzIV, Type-97
    Good (12)M-13/14, M3 Grant, T-34, Valentine, Churchill, 38t, Matilda II
    OK (6)Cromwell, Crusader, IS-2, CharB1 bis, Panther, Tiger I, KV-1
    Poor (0)Tiger II


    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.
    Thanks David, done.

    Leave a comment:


  • smallvillekalel
    replied
    Winner---PzIII


    Excellent (18)M4 Sherman, S-35, Bt-7, PzIV, Type-97
    Good (12)M-13/14, M3 Grant, T-34, Valentine, Churchill, 38t, Matilda II
    OK (6)Cromwell, Crusader, IS-2, CharB1 bis, Panther, Tiger I, KV-1
    Poor (0)Tiger II


    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • smallvillekalel
    replied
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post

    The two Tigers needed to have wheels removed, transport tracks fitted - in short, a lot of faffing about.

    And couldn't fit through the european railway tunnels. IIRC the Tigers bound for Italy and Africa had to go round the alps.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by wellsfargo View Post
    11. Transportability & deployment (20) T-34

    Excellent (18) Somua S35 PzKpfw III PzKpfe 38T M13-14 M4 Type 97

    Good (12) BT 5/7 Cromwell Churchill M3 Valentine Matilda II PzKpfe IV

    OK (6) IS-2 KV-1 Crusader Tiger I Panther

    Poor (0) Tiger II Char B-1

    “Attack with aggression, but always have a plan of retreat”
    Thanks Martin, scores recorded.

    Leave a comment:


  • wellsfargo
    replied
    11. Transportability & deployment (20) T-34

    Excellent (18) Somua S35 PzKpfw III PzKpfe 38T M13-14 M4 Type 97

    Good (12) BT 5/7 Cromwell Churchill M3 Valentine Matilda II PzKpfe IV

    OK (6) IS-2 KV-1 Crusader Tiger I Panther

    Poor (0) Tiger II Char B-1

    “Attack with aggression, but always have a plan of retreat”

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Brumbear View Post
    oops to many thanks I will revise


    ok 6 points would be
    Panther, Valantine , type 97,BT5
    The big tanks have to get a 0 here sorry
    and I am ashamed to say I don't even know what souma is to be honest I will look it up tonight.
    No worries, Dave, I've made those changes. There's plenty of time for adjustments so if you want anything else changed later, please let me know and I can do that for you.

    Also, no need to be ashamed for not being familiar with a particular type of tank. Not everyone lives and breathes these things, and I think most folks have other ways to spend their leisure time. I'm sure you're very far indeed from being the only one around here who isn't a total tank nut; and if you ever want to do it and you have the time, just a little bit of extra research can go a long way. Perhaps one of the spin-off benefits of these polls is that some members might have their curiosity aroused and be prompted to read up a bit more on the lesser-known tanks.

    Thanks again for your participation.
    Last edited by panther3485; 30 Apr 12, 10:13.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brumbear
    replied
    oops to many thanks I will revise


    ok 6 points would be
    Panther, Valantine , type 97,BT5
    The big tanks have to get a 0 here sorry
    and I am ashamed to say I don't even know what souma is to be honest I will look it up tonight.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Brumbear View Post
    Tops goes to the panzerIII the size is perfect for ships,planes trains. The fact that the Germans didn't have to ship mass amounts isn't the tanks fault.
    excellent would have to go to
    M4 M3 pvIV t/34 and 38T has to go hear as well IMO,to high and or to heavy for benckmark on the others I don't go by manufactured numbers and shipped.
    good would have to be Crusader matilda cromwell churchill

    poor would be the rest
    Dave, you've got nothing in the OK (6 points) bracket; and you've dropped all of the following into the Poor (0 points) bracket:

    Valentine
    Somua S-35
    Char B-1 bis
    Tiger I
    Panther
    Tiger II
    M 13-40
    Type 97
    BT-5/7
    KV-1
    IS-2

    Are you sure this is what you really want? I've entered them as such for now but please let me know what you want changed/corrected.


    brod, Nick and Senorankka:

    Thanks for your input. All entered on spreadsheet.
    Last edited by panther3485; 30 Apr 12, 10:10.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X