Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Production & Resources

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

  • #91
    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?
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    Ugly welds are no different in effectiveness to lovely ones.
    As I said, if they hold. In most construction processes good craftsmanship will be an indicator of good overall construction.

    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    Are we talking Panther or T34 transmissions?
    I was referring to T-34 transmissions.

    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    As for sights what source are you using as to their effectiveness?
    Source? Did I make a statement requiring support by some source?

    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    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.
    One of us read a different book. My copy criticizes tank tactics in North Africa more than once, IIRC. I'll check when I get the chance. I didn't know he was alone in thinking monty could have done better. His credentials are superior to yours so I will believe him.

    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    As for flawed British armoured doctrine, you need to read Buckley...
    I will pm you my address and you can mail me a copy or I can save you the postage and pick it up next spring when I am in your neighborhood.

    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    ...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.

    I imagine one has to decide who they will chose to believe on this subject.

    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    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.
    The more I think about your arguement the more I see it as wrong and out of place. This poll is about production efficiency; the manpower, materials, methods and efficiency of building the physical machine. Your argument does not address these issues but one of battlefield capability in the eyes of the British.
    John

    Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by JBark View Post
      As I said, if they hold. In most construction processes good craftsmanship will be an indicator of good overall construction.
      You implied ugly welds were less effective than smoother ones. It makes no difference.

      Originally posted by JBark View Post
      I was referring to T-34 transmissions.
      Transmissions that bad in T-34's? First I've heard of it. I've actually read that Morozov and his design team spent considerable attention to make sure this area was not a problem. The prototypes were fine as a result travelling 100's of miles without mechanical issues.

      Originally posted by JBark View Post
      Source? Did I make a statement requiring support by some source?
      If you have a source on the quality of Soviet optics I would not be the only one who would appreciate that information. Or did you make it up?

      Originally posted by JBark View Post
      One of us read a different book. My copy criticizes tank tactics in North Africa more than once, IIRC. I'll check when I get the chance. I didn't know he was alone in thinking monty could have done better.
      Thinking Monty could have done better is fine if he supports why he believes that.
      Originally posted by JBark View Post
      His credentials are superior to yours so I will believe him.

      No point in your reading of anyone's replies to your posts then.

      Originally posted by JBark View Post
      I will pm you my address and you can mail me a copy or I can save you the postage and pick it up next spring when I am in your neighborhood.
      Don't forget the cost of the book as well .

      Originally posted by JBark View Post
      I imagine one has to decide who they will chose to believe on this subject.
      Very true.

      Originally posted by JBark View Post
      The more I think about your arguement the more I see it as wrong and out of place. This poll is about production efficiency; the manpower, materials, methods and efficiency of building the physical machine. Your argument does not address these issues but one of battlefield capability in the eyes of the British.
      That is your prerogative. I looked at the big picture and decided that if another tank has to be used, and then has to be supported by additional men and kit, then that other tank is wasteful in comparrison. That is my prerogative and fits:
      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?
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        You implied ugly welds were less effective than smoother ones. It makes no difference.
        I said: "Ugly welds can be allowed if they hold." initially. You need to twist it around to something else.

        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        Transmissions that bad in T-34's? First I've heard of it. I've actually read that Morozov and his design team spent considerable attention to make sure this area was not a problem. The prototypes were fine as a result travelling 100's of miles without mechanical issues.
        If you haven't heard of it than you need more information. The authors of this book interview Soviet veterans who tell of horrendous difficulties shifting the T-34. You like hearing it right from the vets, right?

        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        If you have a source on the quality of Soviet optics I would not be the only one who would appreciate that information. Or did you make it up?
        I said: " I want quality in my transmission, as I would with sights." This makes no statement or inference and you are now asking me for a source and demanding to know if I made something up? What's next, another accusation of lying? People that are so suspicious of lying where there is none are usually prone to lie often themselves.

        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        No point in your reading of anyone's replies to your posts then.
        You offered a criticism of the opinions and writings of a retired armored commander and well schooled historian/military college instructor/lecturer. I choose to believe him and ignore your criticism based on what I know of each of you. That has little to do with my reading of replies from others on this forum.

        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        That is your prerogative. I looked at the big picture and decided that if another tank has to be used, and then has to be supported by additional men and kit, then that other tank is wasteful in comparrison. That is my prerogative and fits:
        It hardly fits. Your argument and the tally sheet above seem to indicate that you were looking for any reason to vote the Churchill above the M4 and chose this one issue. Considering the breadth of use of the M4 and T-34 it makes your argument look silly and desperate.
        John

        Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by JBark View Post
          I said: "Ugly welds can be allowed if they hold." initially. You need to twist it around to something else.
          If the look of the weld is unimportant then you should not have raised the point.

          Originally posted by JBark View Post
          If you haven't heard of it than you need more information. The authors of this book interview Soviet veterans who tell of horrendous difficulties shifting the T-34. You like hearing it right from the vets, right?
          You need to finish the book. The vets praise the reliability of the machine later on. Quality issues on all Soviet tanks were inconsistant in the early stages of the war, especially after the factories were moved, but this is hardly the fault of the tank.

          Originally posted by JBark View Post
          I said: " I want quality in my transmission, as I would with sights." This makes no statement or inference and you are now asking me for a source and demanding to know if I made something up? What's next, another accusation of lying? People that are so suspicious of lying where there is none are usually prone to lie often themselves.
          I now see what you are getting at. Apologies for misunderstanding your reply.

          Originally posted by JBark View Post
          You offered a criticism of the opinions and writings of a retired armored commander and well schooled historian/military college instructor/lecturer. I choose to believe him and ignore your criticism based on what I know of each of you. That has little to do with my reading of replies from others on this forum.
          Why bother to reply to my posts then ?

          Originally posted by JBark View Post
          It hardly fits. Your argument and the tally sheet above seem to indicate that you were looking for any reason to vote the Churchill above the M4 and chose this one issue. Considering the breadth of use of the M4 and T-34 it makes your argument look silly and desperate.
          Wrong. I have voted the Sherman ahead of the A22 (and T-34) on several key areas, and often top spot. At the strategic and operational level the M4 was good to superb overall throughout WW2, and when first introduced it was probably the best all round tank in the world. However, to say that the tank was tactically the best tank of WW2, or anywhere near it, is pushing the virtues of the M4 far too far imo . As for your voting of the M4 equal in protection and survivability to the Churchill, does that sum up your insight into WW2 tanks ?
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            If the look of the weld is unimportant then you should not have raised the point.
            Nor did I say unimportant.

            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            You need to finish the book. The vets praise the reliability of the machine later on. Quality issues on all Soviet tanks were inconsistant in the early stages of the war, especially after the factories were moved, but this is hardly the fault of the tank.
            I did finish the book. I will eventually go back to it for a second read but I stand behind my initial impression. I was surprised by the many comments indicating low quality and performance in the Russian Wonder Tank. Yes, it is the fault of the tank.

            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            I now see what you are getting at. Apologies for misunderstanding your reply.
            Knock me over with a feather.

            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            Why bother to reply to my posts then ?
            Not all of your posts fall in to the same category?

            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            Wrong. I have voted the Sherman ahead of the A22 (and T-34) on several key areas, and often top spot. At the strategic and operational level the M4 was good to superb overall throughout WW2, and when first introduced it was probably the best all round tank in the world. However, to say that the tank was tactically the best tank of WW2, or anywhere near it, is pushing the virtues of the M4 far too far imo . As for your voting of the M4 equal in protection and survivability to the Churchill, does that sum up your insight into WW2 tanks ?
            I've been pretty honest about my knowledge of WWII tanks but I also have my way of interpreting the categories as you do. Wasn't it here, during the beginning of this poll that I mentioned that there were many aspects of these machines that I knew less or little about? I recall you admitted to areas where you had a lack of knowledge. Yes? So now what? You believe yourself more knowledgeable so it is time to rub my nose in it. I admit that before reading a bit for this poll and reading Rude Mechanicals(a good coincidence perhaps) I knew little about the Churchill. I have no problem with that, I will learn more. You want to compare votes?...that's pretty ridiculous.
            John

            Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
              For production and resources I've personally voted for bang for buck.
              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.
              Do you prefer Jarymowycz (Tank Tactics) to my view on tanks?

              Originally posted by JBark View Post
              Knock me over with a feather.
              When I'm wrong I will gladly admit I'm wrong. This is not politics but history .
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                Do you prefer Jarymowycz (Tank Tactics) to my view on tanks?
                Can you be more specific?
                John

                Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                Comment


                • #98
                  First off a lot of the tanks need to simply be dropped as the are OoPOoT at the end of war. The real question is between the T-34, M4, Churchill and Pz-IV.

                  The Pz-IV drops out early, even the late war J was still overly complex given the needs for mass production the Germans faced. Ditto for the Churchill, it was not able to be produced in the numbers needed and that is a failing grade for this Poll.

                  That leaves the T-34 v the M4. Both had decent armor and started the war well armed and went into a period of being under-gunned before re-establishing a rough parity against German gun power. The Sherman was produced in greater numbers [durign WWII] and in a shorter time, was more mechanically reliable but also built by a nation that had vastly more resources to devote to production. But the Sherman started as a cavalry tank and evolved into a universal tank equally capable of infantry support and anti-armor ops. The T-34 was designed as a universal tank so here the T-34 gets the nod for efficiency. In fact as a universal tank it is twice as efficient by design as the Sherman even though in practice the gun power is nearly identical.

                  However the Sherman wins in the category of spin offs. The Sherman had a lot more specialized variants from swimming tanks, tanks designed to burn diesel in the pacific (where the Navy had ample stocks of the stuff), to flame tanks, anti-fortification tanks, dozer and mind clear tanks, 90mm AT gun tank destroyers... its a long list.

                  The people building the tanks also matter. The Sherman went from its original gun to its late war gun in 2 years, the T-34 took 4 years giving the nod to the Sherman as far as system improvements go.

                  Overall the Sherman wins it did more with more but the US had more to use and proportionally the Sherman used up less American resources than the T-34 did.=

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by JBark View Post
                    Can you be more specific?
                    His view on tanks involved in Normandy .
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      His view on tanks involved in Normandy .
                      Please do a little better than that. If I recall our previous mention of Jarymowicz it was with reference to his opinion on Monty...nothing more. You pointed out that he offered no references for what he believed and I said I felt he could, in the context of his book, offer his own opinion based on years of work on the subject. His credentials far exceed yours, unless you are hiding something, so I would believe him over you if given no other choice. This does not mean I agree with everything the man wrote or thinks.
                      John

                      Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JBark View Post
                        You offered a criticism of the opinions and writings of a retired armored commander and well schooled historian/military college instructor/lecturer. I choose to believe him and ignore your criticism based on what I know of each of you.
                        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                        Do you prefer Jarymowycz (Tank Tactics) to my view on tanks?
                        Originally posted by JBark View Post
                        Can you be more specific?
                        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                        His view on tanks involved in Normandy .
                        Originally posted by JBark View Post
                        Please do a little better than that. If I recall our previous mention of Jarymowicz it was with reference to his opinion on Monty...nothing more. You pointed out that he offered no references for what he believed and I said I felt he could, in the context of his book, offer his own opinion based on years of work on the subject. His credentials far exceed yours, unless you are hiding something, so I would believe him over you if given no other choice. This does not mean I agree with everything the man wrote or thinks.
                        You agree with Roman Jarymowicz on his view on Monty, but I assume that you disagree with his view on the Sherman?

                        For the record, I disagree with both his views on certain generals, eg Monty (meddling observer), Ike (militarily naive) and Bradley (unimaginative infantryman) and also his view that the M4 is vastly inferior to German tanks, specifically the Panther, but also the King Tiger .

                        Quite frankly, I think his opinions are not as well thought out as one might expect, especially given his credentials.
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          You agree with Roman Jarymowicz on his view on Monty...
                          I can't say I recall it but what I recall is that you criticized his lack references when he commented on Monty's abilities...or lack of. I said he had the credentials to offer an opinion of his own in his book and that these were credentials would be superior to any you possessed (no offense.)

                          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          ...but I assume that you disagree with his view on the Sherman?
                          You know how I feel about the M4, no need to go on about my favorite subject. If he thinks it is a bad machine I, of course, do not agree but it is very easy to present an argument within restricted parameters, excluding certain factors, which makes the M4 look horrible.

                          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          For the record, I disagree with both his views on certain generals, eg Monty (meddling observer), Ike (militarily naive) and Bradley (unimaginative infantryman) and also his view that the M4 is vastly inferior to German tanks, specifically the Panther, but also the King Tiger .
                          Personally I have bounced around so much and so often in my reading that I have learned few specific (in depth) views of the general (have heard the same about Bradley though). Again, you know how I feel about the M4 but my method of evaluating the machine is not the only one. You yourself have mentioned the numerous GI's that are quoted in Jentz's book who are not crazy about the M4's performance

                          Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          Quite frankly, I think his opinions are not as well thought out as one might expect, especially given his credentials.
                          As an ex-tanker he might be of the opinion that the best tank is always the big gun/heavy armor choice (I'm paraphrasing Mike Kenny...about a different author.)
                          John

                          Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                          Comment


                          • Churchill No.1

                            SHerman, Valentine, T-34 and M4 at excellent.

                            the rest at good, cept the cats (Tiggers 1&2 and Panther) once more who get big fat 0's
                            Task Force Regenbogen- Support and Paras

                            Comment


                            • All factors that I can think of considered, I had to go with the Russian T-34. For its day, it was revolutionary. It came out at a time when the Germans had the Russians with their backs to the wall, and helped them defend their country in a way the Germans had a hard time dealing with. JMHO.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tuntavern1983 View Post
                                All factors that I can think of considered, I had to go with the Russian T-34. For its day, it was revolutionary. It came out at a time when the Germans had the Russians with their backs to the wall, and helped them defend their country in a way the Germans had a hard time dealing with. JMHO.
                                Thanks, Mike. I think that's pretty good reasoning and personally, I'm rather inclined to agree. I hope you can vote on the other 11 polls in this set, before they all close on 31 July?

                                Welcome to ACG, btw, if I didn't welcome you already.
                                "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

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X