Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greatest/Best Tank - Production & Resources

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

  • DogDodger
    replied
    If I had a choice between commanding a unit of Panthers at any point in its career versus being in charge of a similar number of Crusaders...

    Your thought seems plausible to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Final Scores for 'Production & Resources'

    Final Scores for the 'Production & Resources' poll:

    1st - T-34 (18.6)
    2nd - M4 Medium (17.5)
    3rd - Valentine (14.5)
    4th - PzKpfw 38(t) (14)
    5th - Churchill (13)
    Equal 6th - PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV (12)
    7th - M3 Medium (11.6)
    8th - BT-5/7 (11.3)
    9th - IS-2 (10.5)
    10th - Cromwell (9.6)
    Equal 11th - Somua S-35 and Type 97 (8.8)
    12th - Matilda II (8)
    13th - M 13-40 (6.8)
    14th - Panther (6.5)
    15th - KV-1 (5.2)
    16th - Tiger I (5.1)
    17th - Char B-1 bis (4.8)
    18th - Crusader (4.4)
    19th - Tiger II (0.4)


    Comments:

    Again in this poll, no great surprises IMO at the very top; another scuffle between the M4 and the T-34; and certainly no surprise for Tiger II to bottom out against this criterion.

    What do you think of the others? I'm raising an eyebrow as to why the Panther - which didn't get a brilliant score here anyway (and why would it) is still 4 rungs above the Crusader for Production & Resources? Or is that just me? Could it be that despite its shortcomings the Panther gave a better account of itself in battle and was therefore somewhat less of a resource sink? Not that I'm saying I necessarily think this is the only possible explanation for the difference, by any means.

    You guys tell me what you think.
    Last edited by panther3485; 12 Aug 12, 09:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Dashy View Post
    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
    Thanks Scott.

    The five placing brackets for this criterion are:

    Highly effective (16 points)
    Good (12 points)
    Fair (8 points)
    Somewhat wasteful (4 points)
    Very wasteful (0 points)

    Given those brackets and your directions, I have placed Valentine, T-34 and M4 Medium into 'Highly effective' for 16 points each; and Tiger I, Panther and Tiger II have all gone into 'Very wasteful' for 0 points each. The remainder, at this stage, I've left to the 'default' average method. However, if you want to give me more specific directions on any of the tanks, or change anything to another bracket, please let me know.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • tuntavern1983
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dashy
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    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.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    Can you be more specific?
    His view on tanks involved in Normandy .

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    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.=

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    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 .

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    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 ?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X