Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposed tank 'campaign' (tournament)

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
    So, with criterion 1, we're to immediately eliminate Strv 103, Merkava, and every World War I tank except the FT?
    With WWI designs, it was very much a question of: What does a tank look like? Post-WWI, the concept is starting to get some consensus: rotating turret, bullet/splinter-proof armour, engine at the back. Oddly, the Strv 103 is considered a tank (a throwback) because of its intended role.

    Comment


    • #17
      I don't find it odd, to be honest. The intended role is how a tank is to be defined IMO. Engineers can come up with some pretty creative and disparate solutions to the problem.

      Edit:
      Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
      1916-38 Christie Mediums M1919-36 & T3 (USA)
      Agreed. Christie's tanks, especially the M1928 which debuted his suspension system, would have a pretty good reason for being on the poll.
      Last edited by DogDodger; 05 Apr 14, 19:46.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

        Gut instinct, is that it was probably the best tank in the world for a greater duration than any other.

        The problem with the Centurion is that the same name is given to tanks of completely different designs. For example, each major design phase of the Centurion was a massive leap forward, such as the Centurion I's 17pdr to the Centurion III's 20pdr to Mark V's 105mm with respect to AP.
        I wouldn't call those completely different designs, though, Nick. Major upgrades, certainly. Major variations, certainly. A few quite different in external appearance, no argument. But fundamentally still the same basic design. Still a Centurion.

        Having said that, if enough members feel that we should divide the Centurion into two periods, so that the early and mid-development versions appear in group 3 (1946-1979) and the 'whiz-bang' upgrades (for want of a better term ) are in group 4 (1980-present), then I would see that as perfectly valid.

        Indeed, a number of tanks span at least two of these time groups (the T-34, for example, spans 3) so we might wish to consider doing likewise with some of those. But it's all open to discussion here. Some members may feel that a particular tank design should be confined to one time group only, that is, the time group where it was most dominant or relevant. I can see a good case for this argument too. And in that case if we look at the Centurion, it's 46-79 but that does not mean it doesn't get credit for its overall longevity into a later time bracket.
        "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


        • #19
          Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
          With WWI designs, it was very much a question of: What does a tank look like? Post-WWI, the concept is starting to get some consensus: rotating turret, bullet/splinter-proof armour, engine at the back. Oddly, the Strv 103 is considered a tank (a throwback) because of its intended role.
          Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
          I don't find it odd, to be honest. The intended role is how a tank is to be defined IMO. Engineers can come up with some pretty creative and disparate solutions to the problem.
          I wouldn't say 'odd' but it is certainly unusual (or 'unconventional' if we prefer).

          Furthermore, even though the Swedes designated the S103 as a tank, closer examination of its primary designed and intended battlefield role, which is fundamentally defensive, does - in physical and practical reality - place it more in the bracket of being a tank destroyer rather than a tank.

          However, having said all of this to my mind it remains debateable because it can easily be seen to fall somewhat into a 'grey' area in between the two classifications. I am certainly prepared to accept it as a tank for the purpose of this campaign, mainly on account of its official classification by the country that designed and built it. On the other hand, if most of you guys say otherwise - effectively, that it is not a tank and shouldn't be included - then I'll defer to that consensus. I am in your hands on this. I would be interested to get a snapshot of the views of other members on this point; but without getting mired in debate on it. (We have certainly had more than one debate on these forums as to whether or not the S-103 is truly a tank, regardless of its classification by the Swedes. We don't really want to start another right now. )

          As a matter of further interest, it has been suggested to me once or twice, that we could run some sort of poll or campaign on TDs and/or SP guns. If we do, and if it covers the post-WW2 period I can see no problem including the Swedish S-103 in that as well. To my way of thinking, it really does seem to have a foot in both camps.
          Last edited by panther3485; 06 Apr 14, 01:58.
          "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


          • #20
            Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
            So, with criterion 1, we're to immediately eliminate Strv 103...
            Yes. The Swedish 'S' Tank has no turret. It is either an assault gun, like the Sturmgeschütz and ISU-152, or it is self-propelled artillery.

            ... Merkava
            Yes. It carries passengers. Other armoured tracked vehicles that have a turret and carry passengers are the BMP and the Bradley. If the Merkava is included, the BMP should be too. It was a pretty radical design, very important at the time it was introduced.

            To make things manageable, there have to be some clear, quick and easy rules. Otherwise, the list of candidates mushrooms out of proportions. If sorting them gets bogged down in what the so-called "role" or "class" of each tank, there are too many categories, not all of which are compatible.

            Do the math. There are nine tank-building nations, each building at least one light tank, one medium tank and one heavier tank, = 36, and as the war went on, new tanks were added to the mix. There are also still "cavalry tanks" (BT), which may or may not be considered with the British Cruiser tanks. There are amphibious tanks and reconnaissance tanks, like the Tetrarch and T-40. The KV-2 is problematic — the KV-1 was the "heavy" tank, while the KV-2 was for use against enemy strongpoints. Then there is the question of the super-heavy tanks developed by the Germans, the Tiger I and Königstiger. There aren't really pigeonholes for them, either. Somewhere it has to get easy.

            ... and every World War I tank except the FT?
            I hadn't considered WW1 tanks. The Renault FT-17 was certainly an important tank. As for the others, apart from the concept, how much did they actually contribute to tank design?

            Regards
            Scott Fraser
            Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

            A contentedly cantankerous old fart

            Comment


            • #21
              I'll play. But only if the T-34 wins every category.
              "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                "Edit:

                Agreed. Christie's tanks, especially the M1928 which debuted his suspension system, would have a pretty good reason for being on the poll."
                We could easily make that Christie tanks M1928-36 & T3 but I included the earlier ones because of their developmental importance.
                "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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by smallvillekalel View Post
                  I'll play. But only if the T-34 wins every category.
                  Bad news for ya, David. The T-34 might struggle just a tad with time group 1, 1916-38.
                  "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


                  • #24
                    Sounds fun. One thing I would consider is innovation

                    “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” -- Albert Einstein

                    The US Constitution doesn't need to be rewritten it needs to be reread

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                      " ... Yes. It carries passengers.
                      Scott, I can foresee huge amounts of flak coming my way if I attempt to exclude the Merkava, on account of its ability to carry a few infantrymen internally or evacuate a couple of wounded. If we were all talking in the same room I'd probably get bashed up!


                      Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                      " ... Other armoured tracked vehicles that have a turret and carry passengers are the BMP and the Bradley. If the Merkava is included, the BMP should be too. It was a pretty radical design, very important at the time it was introduced."
                      I think there's an important differentiation to be made here.

                      Unless I am mistaken, both the BMP and the Bradley have carrying infantry into battle at the core of their intended role. Indeed, they are armoured infantry carriers first and foremost, with everything else they can or might do as bonus features. Developed sufficiently, an 'ordinary' armoured infantry carrier (or APC) can become an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), or similar designation depending on the nation of origin.
                      But in neither case do we have a tank, regardless of whether or not we throw a turret and amphibious capability into the mix.
                      Furthermore, neither the BMP nor the Bradly were ever intended to function as Main Battle Tanks in their designer's wildest dreams.

                      The Merkava is an MBT first and foremost. The ability to carry a few personnel internally is a 'bonus' feature that IMO, does not detract from its primary intended role and function as a Main Battle Tank.

                      I would be very, very surprised indeed - to say the least - if there is much support among the membership for excluding the Merkava. No offence but I really think you're pissing against the wind with that one, Scott.


                      Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                      " ... To make things manageable, there have to be some clear, quick and easy rules. Otherwise, the list of candidates mushrooms out of proportions. If sorting them gets bogged down in what the so-called "role" or "class" of each tank, there are too many categories, not all of which are compatible.

                      Do the math. There are nine tank-building nations, each building at least one light tank, one medium tank and one heavier tank, = 36, and as the war went on, new tanks were added to the mix. There are also still "cavalry tanks" (BT), which may or may not be considered with the British Cruiser tanks. There are amphibious tanks and reconnaissance tanks, like the Tetrarch and T-40. The KV-2 is problematic — the KV-1 was the "heavy" tank, while the KV-2 was for use against enemy strongpoints.
                      Good points there, Scott.

                      I agree we need a certain amount of simplification, otherwise as you very correctly point out the whole thing becomes too complex and unwieldy.
                      Part of my intended approach will be to group tanks in brackets by basic design. For example, with the KV series - assuming they will be on the start line in this tournament - these would be placed as a single entry, "The KV tanks". (Members could please themselves whether or not this includes the KV-2 which was - as I understand its intended function - more or a turreted heavy assault gun than a tank. But if I'm wrong, not too big a problem including it with the KV tanks so far as I can see. It was, IMHO, something of an oddity when looking at the bigger picture.) The BT series would merely be referred to as "The BT tanks". Similarly, a number of the British cruisers that were fundamentally the same design base could be grouped together as well; and so on.

                      You did mention some light tanks. Up to this point, I have not been including most light tanks (in other words, light tanks as a class) in my deliberations; apart from certain tanks that I believe should be specific exceptions, for which the reasons will become apparent when I 'unwrap' them. Of course, this too will be revealed before the tournament begins and I'll be open to feedback on them.

                      We could introduce the whole spectrum of light tanks into the mix but I think this would become both an unnecessary complication and distraction if for no other reason than the sheer number of types serving over some of these time periods. Therefore, up to this point I have included only medium, heavy, infantry, cruiser, MBT etc; as well as a few 'light' tanks that saw at least a reasonable amount of use in medium/cruiser type roles, or similar. If we try to do much more than that IMO, it merely becomes clutter and just too much to manage. Even 64 slots wouldn't be enough.


                      Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                      " ... Then there is the question of the super-heavy tanks developed by the Germans, the Tiger I and Königstiger. There aren't really pigeonholes for them, either. Somewhere it has to get easy."
                      I'm trying to avoid classification pigeon holes. The only 'pigeon holes' I really want to see in this tournament are the four time brackets, into which the tanks are going to fit.

                      However, you have struck a point of interest. I was contemplating having "The Tiger tanks" as a single entry. However, Tiger II was substantially different from Tiger I in a number of respects, arguably almost as much as Panther was different from PzKpfw IV. And I wouldn't dream of having anything other than separate entries for PzKpfw IV and Panther.

                      So, I would like to know what the members think. Tiger I and Tiger II together as a single entry, "The Tiger tanks", or not? Or maybe we could just have Tiger I in the WW2 bracket and leave out Tiger II as being relatively insignificant?


                      Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                      " ... I hadn't considered WW1 tanks. The Renault FT-17 was certainly an important tank. As for the others, apart from the concept, how much did they actually contribute to tank design? ... "
                      If being the very first at something counts for anything, then I'd say they contributed a great deal. The very first stone-age axe, chipped roughly from flint and lashed into a piece of tree branch split at the end, was a massive step forward because it took humankind from having no axes at all, to having axes.
                      If the British Tank Mk. I 'Mother' which took to the field in 1916 was indeed the very first tank to go into battle (but IIRC the first French tank to do so must have been very close), then its significance is massive.

                      It also represented the first useful and practical working application for combining some of what would become key recognized features of the tank, to appear on a live battlefield; such as being an offensive weapon system designed for breaking through enemy lines; full-length caterpillar tracks; the ability to traverse rough ground and surmount obstacles; full enclosure for the fighting compartment and crew within armour plate; ability to use and re-load weapons from within the enclosure; etc.
                      Turrets would come soon afterwards but most folks (including the foremost recognized authors on the history of the tank) seem to agree that this represents the 'birth' of the tank.

                      Hard to see what could be more significant than that. No birth, no existence. And it laid the initial groundwork for everything that followed.
                      Last edited by panther3485; 06 Apr 14, 02:06.
                      "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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                        I wouldn't call those completely different designs, though, Nick. Major upgrades, certainly. Major variations, certainly. A few quite different in external appearance, no argument. But fundamentally still the same basic design. Still a Centurion.

                        Having said that, if enough members feel that we should divide the Centurion into two periods, so that the early and mid-development versions appear in group 3 (1946-1979) and the 'whiz-bang' upgrades (for want of a better term ) are in group 4 (1980-present), then I would see that as perfectly valid.

                        Indeed, a number of tanks span at least two of these time groups (the T-34, for example, spans 3) so we might wish to consider doing likewise with some of those. But it's all open to discussion here. Some members may feel that a particular tank design should be confined to one time group only, that is, the time group where it was most dominant or relevant. I can see a good case for this argument too. And in that case if we look at the Centurion, it's 46-79 but that does not mean it doesn't get credit for its overall longevity into a later time bracket.
                        do we incluide upgrads by other countries has new tanks?
                        you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                        CPO Mzinyati

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                          do we incluide upgrads by other countries has new tanks?
                          I would be inclined to still refer to them as a variation of the same basic design - the Centurion - but they may belong in a different time bracket. For example, the Centurion proper would obviously be in bracket 3 and the 'upgrades' I think you are referring to - most if not all of which occurred after 1980 - could be placed in bracket 4 if that's what we agree on.

                          I'll be looking for feedback from members, as to whether they think this is a good idea because if it is to be applied to the Centurion, then by rights it should be applied to other tanks serving over a long period, such as the T-54/55 series, which also had significant upgrades applied in later decades.
                          Last edited by panther3485; 06 Apr 14, 04:36.
                          "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


                          • #28
                            The S103 is a Panzerjäger- Tank Destroyer. NOT a Tank.
                            An upgrade is an upgrade and not a new Tank IMO.
                            I dont mind if you separate or combine the Tigers or even leave one out. Whatever fits better for getting the right numbers... They are both Pz VI
                            For WW1 i would soften the 'must' criterias for Tanks (turret etc).
                            One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Hanov View Post
                              "The S103 is a Panzerjäger- Tank Destroyer. NOT a Tank."
                              At the time of its conception, production and initial deployment the Swedish military apparently classified it as a tank. However, given its intended primary battlefield function I am somewhat inclined to agree with you that it is effectively more of a TD than a tank.

                              However, for reasons of the S-103's official Swedish classification as well as differences of opinion about this point among our ACG membership, I am prepared to allow it in the tournament unless there is a substantial majority against doing so.


                              Originally posted by Hanov View Post
                              " ... An upgrade is an upgrade and not a new Tank IMO. ... "
                              I agree.


                              Originally posted by Hanov View Post
                              " ... I dont mind if you separate or combine the Tigers or even leave one out. Whatever fits better for getting the right numbers... They are both Pz VI"
                              Cheers. Yes, they were both designated as PzKpfw VI, whereas the Panther had a different designation (PzKpfw V) from PzKpfw IV.


                              Originally posted by Hanov View Post
                              " ... For WW1 i would soften the 'must' criterias for Tanks (turret etc)."
                              I do not consider the presence or absence of a fully rotating turret as a critical and non-negotiable defining characteristic of the tank anyway, in any period of its history. Therefore, speaking purely for myself I have no issue with this. ... but thank you anyway.

                              Of course, we know that taken over the span of the entire history of the tank, the overwhelming majority by far have indeed been equipped with such turrets; mainly I think because this has usually been seen as the most effective way to mount the main armament, all factors considered. In other words, it has become the conventional and usual configuration. But my understanding is that it is not the only possible configuration for a tank to be a tank.
                              Last edited by panther3485; 06 Apr 14, 04:34.
                              "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


                              • #30
                                Criteria and 'suggested ground rules'

                                OK guys, this is what I've condensed so far from your suggestions regarding criteria. In the interests of not making things too complicated or difficult, I've boiled it all down to these seven:


                                1 Comparison with contemporary design (how far ahead of its time was this tank?) as well as innovation and impact on tank design (degree of influence on succeeding designs)

                                2 Impact on the battlefield and/or the conflicts in which it participated

                                3 Degree, longevity and extent of service (how widely it served, for how long and in what numbers)

                                4 Positive or negative impact, if any, on the doctrine and/or the actual practise of war

                                5 Firepower, mobility and protection (degree and balance of those characteristics compared to other tanks of its time)

                                6 Reliability and maintenance. (Includes sound and sensible design for ease of servicing/repair)

                                7 Production costs and logistic burden: This includes raw materials, manpower and energy needed to produce the tank, as well as requirements for fuel, ammunition and spare parts in action.

                                In addition to those 7 criteria, based on all your input so far the following 'ground rules' are going to be suggested to members.
                                I say suggested because, at the end of the day, this is an elimination campaign/tournament and we won't stop members voting for their particular favourites whatever the rationale.
                                We can, however, at least recommend and hope that they will take these two suggestions on board for their deliberations:

                                1. All criteria should be applied to the specific time or period that the tank was in first-line service. Where there is an 'overlap' of service times between two tanks, we should be careful in our comparison if one tank was introduced into service significantly earlier or significantly later than the other it is up against.
                                2. The second criterion, "Impact on the battlefield and/or the conflicts in which it participated" should be applied with particular discretion as the members see fit; with some consideration for tanks that have not had the opportunity to serve in war.

                                Also, the following decisions have been made by us regarding the make-up of the campaign/tournament:
                                • All AFVs selected for listing will be tanks either by definition or official classification. 'Borderline' cases such as the Swedish Strv. 103 to be decided by consensus.
                                • To keep the number of candidates under reasonable control, in many cases tank sub-types or very closely related types, may be grouped together as a single candidate. For example, a number of the British cruisers from the first half of WW2 might be one candidate, for the purpose of this tournament.

                                Further information on the listing of tank types being considered, will be posted in the next couple of days and your feedback will be sought again.
                                In the meantime, if anyone wants to offer suggestions these will be accepted with thanks.

                                Last edited by panther3485; 06 Apr 14, 06:32.
                                "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