Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Production & Resources

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    ... and now, I do believe, that's me completed for these polls.

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

    Comment


    • #62
      Top dog: T34.

      Highly effective: Pzkfw 38 (t), BT 5/7.
      Good: M3 Medium, M4 Medium, Valentine, Panzer III, M13/40,M14/41M15/42.
      Fair: PzKpfw IV, Cromwell, Type 97, Crusader, IS-2.
      Somewhat wasteful: Matilda, Churchill, Somua, Panther.
      Very wasteful: Char B, Tiger I, Tiger II.

      Ed.
      The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by dutched View Post
        Top dog: T34.

        Highly effective: Pzkfw 38 (t), BT 5/7.
        Good: M3 Medium, M4 Medium, Valentine, Panzer III, M13/40,M14/41M15/42.
        Fair: PzKpfw IV, Cromwell, Type 97, Crusader, IS-2.
        Somewhat wasteful: Matilda, Churchill, Somua, Panther.
        Very wasteful: Char B, Tiger I, Tiger II.

        Ed.
        Thanks Ed,

        Which bracket do you want to put the KV-1 in?
        "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


        • #64
          Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
          Thanks Ed,

          Which bracket do you want to put the KV-1 in?
          Hi Paul,

          Please put the KV I in the very wastefull category.

          Cheers Ed.
          The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by dutched View Post
            Hi Paul,

            Please put the KV I in the very wastefull category.

            Cheers Ed.
            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


            • #66
              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

              I'm talking about the formations considering the way the war was actually fought, and what was actually required in a tank for that fight. Further, an armoured brigade is too tank heavy to operate alone in an armoured divisions role, and lacks enough integral infantry (sometimes none) to act in an assault role by itself. The same can be said of tank brigades as well, of course, but that merely shows that the weaknesses of both units are the same, ie independent action is not normally advisable.

              Tank brigades support the infantry divisions with direct firepower once the artillery has stopped (aprox 150m from friendly infantry contacting the enemy in theory). Armoured brigades are less suitable for this. They lack arnour to cope with AT guns, and some have even have towed artillery which prevents them from being as mobile as a US combat command. Further, the British found that an armoured division with more tank regiments than infantry battalions was not balanced. Adding an armoured brigade to support an armoured division for an attack produces the same problems. Instead of 4 tank regiments and 4 infantry companies, you will have 7 tank regiments and (at best) only 5 infantry battalions. It could be worse, depending on the armoured brigade used. You could have 7 tank regiments and only 4 infantry battalions, plus a further towed artillery regiment that hampers an armoured divisions main asset, its mobility.

              The problem with Britains armour in WW2 was that the design to production process was disjointed, and that in the wake of Dunkirk, any tank now was probably better than a decent one later. Further, Britain, due to its smaller army compared to the Axis, decided to use firepower to win battles. The theory before WW2 was that small groups of highly mobile, high firepower troops, would counter any deficiencies in manpower strength. The tank fits this bill, and it should be noted the CW always fielded a high proportion of armoured units.

              Due to this manpower shortage, the British, like the Germans, needed higher quality kit, rather than more kit imo. Armoured brigades with their additional manpower were simply not balanced formations, whether used alone or in conjunction with armoured divisions. Of course, a brigade with 3 Sherman regiments and a 25pdr regiment would be a useful addition to an infantry division, but not as useful as a cheaper tougher Churchill brigade.

              That is my position looking at the big picture. Shermans proved their worth when first introduced into N Africa, and the Easy 8 is definitely a candidate for 'best' tank 5.5.45. All marks were certainly better than any other Japanese or Italian tank they encountered, and they probably did extremely well during Bagration (it was their intended role afterall). I personally have given excellent to top marks for the M4 in many categories to reflect its strengths, and believe the M4 is vastly underrated in some circles. However, let's take the tank for what it was. It was reliable and transportable, easy to produce and maintain, and with a useful range of firepower options that made it more than suitable for the armoured role. That role simply did not happen enough in NWE, nor Italy.
              Taking the tanks for what they were, we also have to take their formations for what they were. The formations were designed for different purposes, and the tank brigades had no infantry attached because they would be attached to infantry. Not many people would agree that Monty knew what he was doing with armor. Buckley certainly doesn't; indeed, that's part of the premise of his book. Smithers agrees: "Montgomery, whatever headdress he affected, was not really a tank man." You can argue that infantry tanks are more efficient than cruisers because they can take more punishment, can better protect their crews, and their slow speed wasn't that much of a handicap (those are very valid points), but saying the formations drawn up for early infantry and cruiser tanks makes later tanks somehow more or less efficient and that infantry tanks need less infantry than other tanks doesn't add up, and that hypothesis is not supported by Buckley, Smithers, Beale, Fletcher, or Smith.

              Anyway, on to the vote. The factors seem to ask which tank affected its manufacturing country the least, which would tilt the scales in favor of the light BT tanks built by the massive USSR, but then we're asked to also gauge the tanks' overall effectiveness, which tilts the favor back towards the heavier tanks. With that in mind, I think the T-34 should get top vote. The Christie suspension was more complicated to build than the external suspensions of the US tanks or Pz.Kpfw.IV, for example, but T-34 was one of the most effective medium tanks of the war, and the Soviets cut essentially all unnecessary corners in its manufacture. From rough castings and huge welds to dropping the external rubber tires on the wheels, the T-34 became a simply built but rugged machine.

              Highly effective: M4, Churchill, Valentine, Pz.Kpfw.IV
              Good: M3, Pz.Kpfw.III, Cromwell, IS-2 (more simple to produce than Panther, the Soviets could handle its production much easier than the Germans), BT-5/7, Pz.Kpfw.38(t), Matilda
              Fair: S-35, Char B, Panther, Tiger I, Type 97 (the Japanese lacked a society mechanized enough for mechanized weapons to not be a drain), KV-1
              Somewhat wasteful: Crusader (cruisers up until Cromwell were ineffective and reliability taxed their manufacturers), M 13-40/14-41/15-42 (Italian society was largely unmechanized despite Mussolini's attempts to shove mechanization down the country's throat; making a medium tank was a very big deal)
              Very wasteful: Tiger II

              Comment


              • #67
                Thanks Chris, all entered on the spreadsheet.
                "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


                • #68
                  As I reread the considerations for this poll and look at the results of the voting I am a little puzzled by the voting for the T-34. How does this account for the moving of the factories after Barbarossa? Surely this has to be considered a tremendous expenditure of resources. While the Soviet Union is moving and rebuilding her factories the US production machine, which had prewar out produced the world, is busy efficiently producing thousands and thousands of tanks. It is unfortunate that the USSR was faced with this necessary hardship but faced with it it was and it can not have resulted in anything but a substantial drop in efficiency and productivity, a use of more resources, more man hours, a greater drain on skills and technical assets.
                  John

                  Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by JBark View Post
                    As I reread the considerations for this poll and look at the results of the voting I am a little puzzled by the voting for the T-34. How does this account for the moving of the factories after Barbarossa? Surely this has to be considered a tremendous expenditure of resources. While the Soviet Union is moving and rebuilding her factories the US production machine, which had prewar out produced the world, is busy efficiently producing thousands and thousands of tanks. It is unfortunate that the USSR was faced with this necessary hardship but faced with it it was and it can not have resulted in anything but a substantial drop in efficiency and productivity, a use of more resources, more man hours, a greater drain on skills and technical assets.
                    Perhaps I am going dense between the ears on account of my age? I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

                    Surely, in the face of all this industrial disruption the Soviets suffered, a tank that was relatively economical on resources - in proportion to its capabilities - would be a plus, not a minus? And the fact that they managed to produce a very useful and basically competent medium tank in such large quantities, was a tribute to their management of resources under such difficult circumstances? At least, so I would have thought.
                    "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


                    • #70
                      Add to the fact that the M4 wasn't even in production when those factories were being moved. But moving factories has to be a whole lot cheaper than trying to build everything, and I do mean every tool from scratch.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                        Perhaps I am going dense between the ears on account of my age? I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.
                        Always that possibility but I doubt I am far behind...in years.

                        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                        Surely, in the face of all this industrial disruption the Soviets suffered, a tank that was relatively economical on resources - in proportion to its capabilities - would be a plus, not a minus? And the fact that they managed to produce a very useful and basically competent medium tank in such large quantities, was a tribute to their management of resources under such difficult circumstances? At least, so I would have thought.
                        They produced a decent tank from a design and set of plans that already existed. Within the management and use of their resources came the need to move and set up again. This is an expenditure of resources that should be factored in, i.e. the gas, electricity and manpower that were required to move the factories should be added to the tally sheet on what it took to make a T-34 post 1941.
                        John

                        Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                          Add to the fact that the M4 wasn't even in production when those factories were being moved. But moving factories has to be a whole lot cheaper than trying to build everything, and I do mean every tool from scratch.
                          First I would suggest you remember who the US put to the task of tank production. In the years prior to WWII the US auto industry was out producing THE WORLD. Secondly you need only look at the M3 and other AFV's which came before the M4 to realize that every, and I mean every,
                          tool was not being made from scratch to produce an M4.
                          John

                          Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by JBark View Post
                            "They produced a decent tank from a design and set of plans that already existed. Within the management and use of their resources came the need to move and set up again. This is an expenditure of resources that should be factored in, i.e. the gas, electricity and manpower that were required to move the factories should be added to the tally sheet on what it took to make a T-34 post 1941."
                            Understand now. I wonder how many members would agree?
                            "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


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                              Understand now. I wonder how many members would agree?
                              I must admit I don't .
                              I honestly cannot consider a tank inferior just because the country producing it got invaded and the factories needed to be moved.
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                I must admit I don't .
                                I honestly cannot consider a tank inferior just because the country producing it got invaded and the factories needed to be moved.
                                The point was not about inferiority of the tank per se but about the amount of resources that went in to making it (Production and Resources.) Whether a country was low in resources, being bombed, had been invaded or faced none of these hardships should not factor in to this category, as I read it. This category is simply about math. While the USSR should be recognized for a great achievement in this category of the poll I would not factor that in.
                                John

                                Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X