Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Production & Resources

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

  • Greatest/Best Tank - Production & Resources

    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.
    50
    Matilda II
    0.00%
    0
    Crusader
    0.00%
    0
    Churchill
    4.00%
    2
    Valentine
    0.00%
    0
    Cromwell
    0.00%
    0
    Somua S-35
    0.00%
    0
    Char B-1 bis
    0.00%
    0
    PzKpfw 38(t)
    0.00%
    0
    PzKpfw III
    0.00%
    0
    PzKpfw IV (short & long guns combined)
    0.00%
    0
    Tiger I
    0.00%
    0
    Panther
    0.00%
    0
    Tiger II
    0.00%
    0
    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)
    56.00%
    28
    KV-1
    0.00%
    0
    IS-2
    2.00%
    1
    M3 Medium
    0.00%
    0
    M4 Medium (all versions combined)
    38.00%
    19

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by panther3485; 23 Apr 12, 09:51.
    "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 Production & Resources 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 production & consumption of resources factors of all 21 tanks in this particular thread.


    12. Production & consumption of resources (max 20 points)

    Armoured warfare isn't just about the battles; it's also a significant part of the struggle for resources especially in a prolonged war of attrition, which is what WW2 became.
    Important factors impacting on this struggle include the following:

    · Consumption of raw materials per unit
    · Utilization of manufacturing capacity
    · Transport requirements during manufacture (disbursement etc)
    · Consumption of fuel, electric power, gas and water
    · Human labour ('man hours') required on a 'per unit' basis
    · Drain of skills and technical assets
    · Taking best advantage of national attributes and assets?

    Did the tank in question make the best or most optimal use of available resources or was it an excessive or inefficient resource burden, when weighed against its overall effectiveness?


    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

    Brackets

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

    In your opinion, was the tank's use of resources ...

    Highly effective (16)
    Good (12)
    Fair (8)
    Somewhat wasteful (4)
    Very wasteful (0)
    Last edited by panther3485; 27 Apr 12, 11:18.
    "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
      Probably my most contentious vote, but went Churchill. Cheaper up front does not necessarily mean cheaper long term. In terms of combat power, the British realised that three regiments of Shermans needed a battalion of infantry to equal the smaller three regiments of Churchills. Thats hundreds of fighting men, and even more constantly having to supply the extra food and kit etc to those additional men and tanks.

      Highly effective (16) - M4, T-34, Valentine, PzKpfw 38(t)

      Good (12) - Tiger 1, PzIII and IV, Panther, BT-5/7, IS-2

      Fair (8) - Matilda 2, Cromwell, Somua S-35, Char B-1 bis, Type 97 Chi-Ha, KV-1. M3 Medium

      Somewhat wasteful (4) - M 13-40/14-41/15-42

      Very wasteful (0) - Tiger 2, Crusader
      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
        Benchmark: T-34 (76 and 85 combined)

        Highly effective: M4 Medium (all versions combined), Valentine,

        Good: PzKpfw 38(t), PzKpfw III, Somua S-35, PzKpfw IV (short & long guns combined), IS-2, Churchill, Cromwell, BT-5/7, Type 97 Chi-Ha

        Fair: Panther, M3 Medium, Matilda II, M 13-40/14-41/15-42,

        Somewhat wasteful: KV-1, Char B-1 bis, Tiger I, Crusader,

        Very Wasteful: Tiger II,

        The T-34 by a nose, simply because the cost of production plummeted so much over its production life. The M-4 medium is a close second, but there wasn't the drive to make its production more cost effective.

        Around the middle, most of the designs were reasonable allocations of production assets and raw materials. The more specialised a design was, or the more it stepped outside its design brief, the more it sucked. Reliability and complexity reflected how bad some of these constructions were.

        And in 1944, Germany did not need a 70 ton tank - it needed a miracle (which may have been cheaper).

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks Nick and brod. 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


          • #6
            12. Production & consumption of resources (20) M4

            Highly effective (16) T-34 PzKpfw 38T PzKpfw III Type 97

            Good (12) Churchill Valentine M3 PzKpfw IV IS-2 M 13-14

            Fair (8) Somua S35 Cromwell Panther Matilda II

            Somewhat wasteful (4) Tiger I BT 5/7 Crusader

            Very wasteful (0) KV-1 Tiger II Char B-1

            PS….. Thanks Panther3485.. This post is fantastic…. I now know more about a lot of different tanks and their uses throughout WW II


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

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wellsfargo View Post
              12. Production & consumption of resources (20) M4

              Highly effective (16) T-34 PzKpfw 38T PzKpfw III Type 97

              Good (12) Churchill Valentine M3 PzKpfw IV IS-2 M 13-14

              Fair (8) Somua S35 Cromwell Panther Matilda II

              Somewhat wasteful (4) Tiger I BT 5/7 Crusader

              Very wasteful (0) KV-1 Tiger II Char B-1

              PS….. Thanks Panther3485.. This post is fantastic…. I now know more about a lot of different tanks and their uses throughout WW II


              “Attack with aggression, but always have a plan of retreat”
              Thanks Martin, and I'm very happy to see people getting some value out of this. Helps to make it all worthwhile.

              Your scoring is very nearly complete. You've missed only one tank on one poll, and that was the BT-5/7 in poll 10, 'Cost of Running/Maintenance/Repair'. If you could go back to that thread (you'll see I mentioned it there) and score the BT, you're home and hosed!

              Thanks again for your participation and enthusiasm.
              Last edited by panther3485; 30 Apr 12, 08:47.
              "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


              • #8
                I voted M4. This tank was built in the same country which had swamped the world with mass produced automobiles through the 1930's. The same country that made thousands and thousands of superb 4WD trucks for supplying the troops and aiding the USSR. THe US made thousands of ships and planes as well along with millions of weapons and supplies for the troops. To believe that the men Roosevelt called on to do this, major industrialists, didn't do the best job is beyond me. I will point out that most of the German tanks will rate poorly for this for different reasons. I recall in my reading of the German wartime maintenace and repair situation that a disaster had been created by the multiple models made, minor variations in models, etc.

                Highly Effective- M3, T-34, Valentine, Pz 38T

                Good - Churchill, Somua, Valentine

                Fair- PzIII, IS-II, Matilda II, Cromwell, Type 97, Char B1

                Somewhat Wasteful -PzIV, KV-1, M13-14, Crusader

                Very Wasteful -Tiger I, Tiger II, Panther
                John

                Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JBark View Post
                  I voted M4. This tank was built in the same country which had swamped the world with mass produced automobiles through the 1930's. The same country that made thousands and thousands of superb 4WD trucks for supplying the troops and aiding the USSR. THe US made thousands of ships and planes as well along with millions of weapons and supplies for the troops. To believe that the men Roosevelt called on to do this, major industrialists, didn't do the best job is beyond me. I will point out that most of the German tanks will rate poorly for this for different reasons. I recall in my reading of the German wartime maintenace and repair situation that a disaster had been created by the multiple models made, minor variations in models, etc.

                  Highly Effective- M3, T-34, Valentine, Pz 38T

                  Good - Churchill, Somua, Valentine

                  Fair- PzIII, IS-II, Matilda II, Cromwell, Type 97, Char B1

                  Somewhat Wasteful -PzIV, KV-1, M13-14, Crusader

                  Very Wasteful -Tiger I, Tiger II, Panther
                  You've got the Valentine in two different brackets. For now, I've put it in the top one but please let me know if you want that changed.

                  Also, the BT-5/7 is missing.
                  "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


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                    You've got the Valentine in two different brackets. For now, I've put it in the top one but please let me know if you want that changed.

                    Also, the BT-5/7 is missing.
                    Yes, top place for Valentine and Good category of BT-5/7. I found it under my desk.
                    John

                    Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JBark View Post
                      Yes, top place for Valentine and Good category of BT-5/7. I found it under my desk.
                      OK John, done.
                      "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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                        Probably my most contentious vote, but went Churchill. Cheaper up front does not necessarily mean cheaper long term. In terms of combat power, the British realised that three regiments of Shermans needed a battalion of infantry to equal the smaller three regiments of Churchills. Thats hundreds of fighting men, and even more constantly having to supply the extra food and kit etc to those additional men and tanks.
                        Where did we read this, by the way? Thanks.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                          Where did we read this, by the way? Thanks.
                          All over the place. Pretty sure Buckley has something on this, about the fact that only 3 of the 8 independant brigades would have Churchills, and that Shermans were to be used for the role in the other 5. Due to their unsuitability in the assault role, new tactics were to be deployed whereby the M4's would shoot other units onto the objective, just as M4 75mm's shot Churchills with 6pdrs onto their objectives in Italy.

                          However, this stopped the tank using its greatest asset, its mobility, and greater consideration was given to armour-infantry co-operation (ATI No.2 springs to mind here, but I don't know in which context?). First an initial attack, a pause for breath and tidying up, then finally the breakout. However, the fact remains the Shermans could not do the Churchills job, while the latter could and did do the M4's both in the West and East.

                          I've read too much to pinpoint many 'facts' and if you have better information with references, please post .
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                            Probably my most contentious vote, but went Churchill. Cheaper up front does not necessarily mean cheaper long term. In terms of combat power, the British realised that three regiments of Shermans needed a battalion of infantry to equal the smaller three regiments of Churchills. Thats hundreds of fighting men, and even more constantly having to supply the extra food and kit etc to those additional men and tanks.
                            ...
                            I find this odd considering your voting in Cost of Running/Maintenance/Repair puts the Churchill low enough to show that it took a fair degree of maintenance to keep it in the field, i.e., it used up a lot of resources comparatively.

                            "No brainer for me. This is THE strength of the M4 imo.

                            Very low (24) - T34, Valentine, Cromwell, PzKpfw 38(t), M3 Medium
                            Low (18) - Churchill, IS-2, Pz III and IV, Type 97 Chi-Ha.
                            Moderate (12) - Somua S-35, Char B-1 bis, M 13-40/14-41/15-42, BT-5/7
                            High (6) - Matilda 2, Tiger 1
                            Very high (0) - Crusader, KV-1, Tiger 2, Panther.
                            "

                            Why would a tank that gets B-/C+ grades in Running/Maintenance/Repair get top mark in cost of running?
                            John

                            Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              All over the place. Pretty sure Buckley has something on this, about the fact that only 3 of the 8 independant brigades would have Churchills, and that Shermans were to be used for the role in the other 5. Due to their unsuitability in the assault role, new tactics were to be deployed whereby the M4's would shoot other units onto the objective, just as M4 75mm's shot Churchills with 6pdrs onto their objectives in Italy.

                              However, this stopped the tank using its greatest asset, its mobility, and greater consideration was given to armour-infantry co-operation (ATI No.2 springs to mind here, but I don't know in which context?). First an initial attack, a pause for breath and tidying up, then finally the breakout. However, the fact remains the Shermans could not do the Churchills job, while the latter could and did do the M4's both in the West and East.

                              I've read too much to pinpoint many 'facts' and if you have better information with references, please post .
                              I don't have a reference, which is why I'm asking. For what it's worth, I did unsuccessfully look through Death by Design, The Great Tank Scandal, Universal Tank, and Mr. Churchill's Tank for any mention of infantry being added to the British TO&E because of the M4, or for some kind of force ratio comparison between the M4 and Churchill. From a cursory web search (I don't have anything concerning British TO&E, so correct me if I'm wrong) the motorised infantry battalion was added to the armoured brigade in 1940? That would seem to discount both Sherman and Churchill from having any effect on that organizational change? Is this what you're talking about?

                              For the record, I'm of course not saying the Churchill wasn't a useful tank. Adding an infantry battalion to make a unit comparable to another because of specific tank types would be interesting, and I'm trying to track that down. Thanks for any info.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X