Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Production & Resources

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

  • #76
    Just as a refresher, gents ....

    ... even though most of us have already voted anyway.

    That said, if anyone wants to change their mind about any of their placings, there's still a whole month left to do it.

    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)
    My observation is that the great majority of us (40 out of 42 so far) voted either for the T-34 or the M4, and whichever one of those we thought was #1, those of us doing placings would have put the other in the 'Highly effective' bracket. So it's going to be quite close, whichever way the cake is cut.

    Let's see if we can capture a few more votes before closure of the polls.
    Last edited by panther3485; 30 Jun 12, 08:42.
    "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


    • #77
      Taking this to mean you agree with my point. Well done.

      Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
      ... even though most of us have already voted anyway.

      That said, if anyone wants to change their mind about any of their placings, there's still a whole month left to do it.



      My observation is that the great majority of us (40 out of 42 so far) voted either for the T-34 or the M4, and whichever one of those we thought was #1, those of us doing placings would have put the other in the 'Highly effective' bracket. So it's going to be quite close, whichever way the cake is cut.

      Let's see if we can capture a few more votes before closure of the polls.
      Until recently I have always been one to try to hog more cake than...necessary?
      John

      Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by JBark View Post
        Taking this to mean you agree with my point. Well done.



        Until recently I have always been one to try to hog more cake than...necessary?
        I can see that you have a point. Whether it would carry sufficient weight to sway the vote, when all other factors are in the balance too, is another question that each member would need to decide for themselves.
        I am hoping that my position on the matter would come across as impartial. Perhaps I failed in that regard?

        I haven't done a truly in-depth analysis of the relative costings. Based on my limited information though, I'm thinking that by 1943, the per-unit cost of the T-34 - all resources involved being considered - would probably still have been lower than that of the M4 even if the requirement to re-locate most of the production is taken into account.

        Having said this, the Sherman had the 3-man turret and superior soft factors, which arguably should have made it more effective in battle, on a tank-for-tank basis. So even if the cost was higher, maybe the higher unit value was enough to offset that.

        Hmmmmmm

        I think the members will make up their own minds anyway, regardless of what either of us might say.
        "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


        • #79
          Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
          Having said this, the Sherman had the 3-man turret and superior soft factors, which arguably should have made it more effective in battle, on a tank-for-tank basis. So even if the cost was higher, maybe the higher unit value was enough to offset that.
          I would definitely agree.
          John

          Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by JBark View Post
            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.
            I was referring to the Soviet industry. The tenor of your response indicates deliberate obtuseness and willful misinterpretation.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
              I can see that you have a point. Whether it would carry sufficient weight to sway the vote, when all other factors are in the balance too, is another question that each member would need to decide for themselves.
              I am hoping that my position on the matter would come across as impartial. Perhaps I failed in that regard?

              I haven't done a truly in-depth analysis of the relative costings. Based on my limited information though, I'm thinking that by 1943, the per-unit cost of the T-34 - all resources involved being considered - would probably still have been lower than that of the M4 even if the requirement to re-locate most of the production is taken into account.

              Having said this, the Sherman had the 3-man turret and superior soft factors, which arguably should have made it more effective in battle, on a tank-for-tank basis. So even if the cost was higher, maybe the higher unit value was enough to offset that.

              Hmmmmmm

              I think the members will make up their own minds anyway, regardless of what either of us might say.
              If one is going to factor in the cost of moving the factories, one also has to factor in the cost of moving the final product, which is suddenly going to favour any vehicle produced close to a combat zone. The M4 has to be moved from the factories in the central United States to ports, loaded on ships, moved across oceans, unloaded, moved to the depot, assigned to units etc. If it is being given as Lend-Lease, we need to factor in the rail journey across the Soviet Union.

              The question and parameters around the question relate to cost and utilisation of resources during production. Moving factories/end product is not a factor in production efficiency but is about other rational decisions related to retention of productive capacity and denial of spoils of war to the enemy.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                If one is going to factor in the cost of moving the factories, one also has to factor in the cost of moving the final product, which is suddenly going to favour any vehicle produced close to a combat zone. The M4 has to be moved from the factories in the central United States to ports, loaded on ships, moved across oceans, unloaded, moved to the depot, assigned to units etc. If it is being given as Lend-Lease, we need to factor in the rail journey across the Soviet Union.

                The question and parameters around the question relate to cost and utilisation of resources during production. Moving factories/end product is not a factor in production efficiency but is about other rational decisions related to retention of productive capacity and denial of spoils of war to the enemy.
                Yes, and that is the reason why I quoted the framing of those parameters. For example, what interpretation is going to be placed on the third dot point? Or the fourth? Or fifth? Should any of them include the cost of relocating the greater portion of the manufacturing base? I'm happy to let the members decided for themselves in the confidence that most of them will come up with the appropriate answer.

                Transportation and deployment of the product after manufacture is pretty well catered for under a separate poll thread.

                This poll thread was only meant to deal with what's happening in terms of resource consumption and efficiency of utilization of resources during manufacture; along with such matters as what was required in terms of skills and assets to support and facilitate said manufacture; and how well the product suited the manufacturing base of the country where it was made in terms of best possible utilization giving 'bang for the buck' value. Or at least, that's what I hoped I was asking.
                Last edited by panther3485; 01 Jul 12, 10:06.
                "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


                • #83
                  Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                  I was referring to the Soviet industry. The tenor of your response indicates deliberate obtuseness and willful misinterpretation.
                  I'll speak a little plainer. I believe I did misinterpret your reply, though not willfully.
                  Apologies

                  Are you a fan of The Shawshank Redemption?
                  John

                  Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by JBark View Post
                    I'll speak a little plainer. I believe I did misinterpret your reply, though not willfully.
                    Apologies

                    Are you a fan of The Shawshank Redemption?
                    Unfortunately not a film I have seen. But the apology is accepted.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                      Yes, and that is the reason why I quoted the framing of those parameters. For example, what interpretation is going to be placed on the third dot point? Or the fourth? Or fifth? Should any of them include the cost of relocating the greater portion of the manufacturing base? I'm happy to let the members decided for themselves in the confidence that most of them will come up with the appropriate answer.

                      Transportation and deployment of the product after manufacture is pretty well catered for under a separate poll thread.

                      This poll thread was only meant to deal with what's happening in terms of resource consumption and efficiency of utilization of resources during manufacture; along with such matters as what was required in terms of skills and assets to support and facilitate said manufacture; and how well the product suited the manufacturing base of the country where it was made in terms of best possible utilization giving 'bang for the buck' value. Or at least, that's what I hoped I was asking.
                      I really don't see how this issue could not be taken into consideration somewhere in this poll and this category seems the best. Reliability showed negative marks for the Panther and as we know the Panther suffered toward the end of the war due to a shortage of parts. Why? The Germans concentrated their factory production on the tank itself and produced fewer parts because of Allied bombing. Should this be ignored all together?

                      I see this category, as I stated earlier, as one of numbers. Electricity, fuel, man hours, efficiency...we are really going to ignore having to pack up and rebuild? Should we ignore Britain or Germany having to bring iron from across the world (hypothetical?) If one country had an abundance of all the resources necessary for making tanks we would factor that in. Germany rebuilding her factories over and over (supposition of bombed to destruction) should be factored that in. Yes?
                      John

                      Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by JBark View Post
                        I really don't see how this issue could not be taken into consideration somewhere in this poll and this category seems the best. Reliability showed negative marks for the Panther and as we know the Panther suffered toward the end of the war due to a shortage of parts. Why? The Germans concentrated their factory production on the tank itself and produced fewer parts because of Allied bombing. Should this be ignored all together?

                        I see this category, as I stated earlier, as one of numbers. Electricity, fuel, man hours, efficiency...we are really going to ignore having to pack up and rebuild? Should we ignore Britain or Germany having to bring iron from across the world (hypothetical?) If one country had an abundance of all the resources necessary for making tanks we would factor that in. Germany rebuilding her factories over and over (supposition of bombed to destruction) should be factored that in. Yes?

                        Regarding the Panther we may never know. The first Panthers were really bad on several key motor issues as Kursk showed. They did generally get better as the war continued, except in terms of armour quality. Due to a lack of certain metals, quality of armour plate dropped late in the war.

                        I've never held shortage of parts against the Panther, just like I've never held the quality issues of the T34 against that tank in the 42 production run. With regards to the Panther it was a really tall and long tank without enough side armour. 75mm Shermans in the hands of decent crews showed that 50mm of armour was not good enough, especially with such a side profile.

                        For production and resources I've personally voted for bang for buck. While I chose neither M4 not T34 top dog here, the T34 certainly gives a great deal for your buck.
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                          I've never held shortage of parts against the Panther...
                          It was a tank that required much maintenance and when parts are absent its frailties become magnified, IMO. The reliable, low service tank, stands out.

                          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          ...just like I've never held the quality issues of the T34 against that tank in the 42 production run.
                          For me that would depend on quality of what aspect of the machine. Ugly welds can be allowed if they hold. Transmissions that require a bear and a half to shift and crap out after 200 km? I want quality in my transmission, as I would with sights.

                          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          For production and resources I've personally voted for bang for buck.
                          I recall your argument for your choice - M4's v Churchills in British units - and I can't see it holding up. Dog Dodger made what seem like solid arguments against the logic of your claim. Additionally from what I see in the writings of Smithers (Rude Mechanicals) and Jarymowycz (Tank Tactics) the picture of how the Brits organized their armor was not something to draw conclusions like yours from.
                          John

                          Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            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?

                            Originally posted by JBark View Post
                            It was a tank that required much maintenance and when parts are absent its frailties become magnified, IMO. The reliable, low service tank, stands out.
                            You are entitled to your opinion of course, and I agree in part. Reliability and ease of maintenance are crucial oft overlooked areas .

                            Originally posted by JBark View Post
                            For me that would depend on quality of what aspect of the machine. Ugly welds can be allowed if they hold. Transmissions that require a bear and a half to shift and crap out after 200 km? I want quality in my transmission, as I would with sights.
                            Ugly welds are no different in effectiveness to lovely ones.
                            Are we talking Panther or T34 transmissions?
                            As for sights what source are you using as to their effectiveness?

                            Originally posted by JBark View Post
                            I recall your argument for your choice - M4's v Churchills in British units - and I can't see it holding up. Dog Dodger made what seem like solid arguments against the logic of your claim. Additionally from what I see in the writings of Smithers (Rude Mechanicals) and Jarymowycz (Tank Tactics) the picture of how the Brits organized their armor was not something to draw conclusions like yours from.
                            Jarymowycz is flawed imo. He would have had the Brits using the same tactics that failed in N Africa prior to Monty, a man Jarymowycz often singles out as lacking skill and vision, but without using any references for his opinion.
                            Not read Smithers so cannot pass judgement.

                            As for flawed British armoured doctrine, you need to read Buckley on how it improved markedly during Normandy 1944. Further, the US decided to copy the Brit practise of using 4 tank regiments with 4 infantry battalions per AD (or unit equivalents) post WW2 as the best option at that time. Like the quality of most of their tanks, British armoured units left much to be desired in the early to mid years of the war. By the end, tanks and doctrine were at least equal to anyone else.

                            Further, the British wanted 8 brigades of Churchills to support their infantry divisions. Due to lack of I tanks, 5 brigades had to use Shermans instead. Further, these armoured brigades needed additional assets and manpower to make them equivalent in combat power to a tank brigade of I tanks. That meant M4's effectively used more resources to achieve the same ends. That is why I voted Churchill here.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              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?
                              The question asks nothing about deployment, servicing, reliability or any soft factors - these are covered in other questions. The core of the question is whether the vehicle was the best bang (however that is defined) for buck that the producing economy could have got.

                              So, was the M4 the most resource efficient tank the US economy could have made, was the T-34 for the USSR and so forth, and then which one was best of the best in regard to resource use. Ask yourself if the M4 could have been made better and cheaper? Could the Pz IV? The T-34? Were there better production methods that would have saved money that the economy had and could have used? Bluntly: could "your tank's name here" have been made cheaper, simpler and with less waste?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                                The question asks nothing about deployment, servicing, reliability or any soft factors - these are covered in other questions. The core of the question is whether the vehicle was the best bang (however that is defined) for buck that the producing economy could have got.

                                So, was the M4 the most resource efficient tank the US economy could have made, was the T-34 for the USSR and so forth, and then which one was best of the best in regard to resource use. Ask yourself if the M4 could have been made better and cheaper? Could the Pz IV? The T-34? Were there better production methods that would have saved money that the economy had and could have used? Bluntly: could "your tank's name here" have been made cheaper, simpler and with less waste?
                                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?


                                The cost of Churchill did become cheaper and production time did improve as time went on. I maintain that the Churchill was a more efficient use of resources overall than the M4 .
                                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X