Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposed tank 'campaign' (tournament)

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

  • #31
    Looking at the Mk I. Inclusion because it was the first. Maybe not. I would however nominate it for thought that went into the superior layout of the track design, vestiges of which can be seen in vehicles long after.

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

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
      ...
      Just so I'm understanding you correctly, let me reiterate your points. A tank is defined by physical characteristics that overlap with several other classes of vehicles. BMP and Merkava are in the same class of vehicle. In our poll on the most significant and influential tanks in history, we should give special consideration to tanks designed to float, but World War I tanks were not historically significant or influential except for the FT.

      Am I incorrect that this is what you're proposing? Thanks.

      Originally posted by Hanov View Post
      The S103 is a Panzerjäger- Tank Destroyer. NOT a Tank.
      What are you basing this on? Just how the tank looks? Certainly not why it was designed, how it was organized or used, or what it was capable of (especially versus contemporary tanks).

      Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
      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.
      If taking its place in a country with a fundamentally defensive doctrine should come into play, then what about Chieftain, Conqueror, Challenger, M103, M1, etc.? When the Abrams was designed and fielded, the US Army's doctrine was even called Active Defense and was designed to whittle down Soviet penetrations via formulaic and mathematical attrition. I know we've been down this road before and shouldn't be getting into this debate in this thread, so I apologize. I'll save any more debate on this for the thread seeking suggestions on what tanks to include.

      Re: Tiger tanks, I'd be comfortable with combining them or leaving Ausf.B out. It was essentially a new vehicle, but I'm not sure it really has a place of its own on a list of influential or significant tanks.

      Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
      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:
      Those sound pretty reasonable. Looking forward to the debate on what to include.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
        " ... If taking its place in a country with a fundamentally defensive doctrine should come into play, then what about Chieftain, Conqueror, Challenger, M103, M1, etc.?
        Tanks are fundamentally an offensive weapon system. This is an immutable and vital part of the essence of the definition of the tank.

        There's a difference between having a fundamentally defensive doctrine and a fundamentally defensive AFV.

        It is possible, and usually perfectly viable, to employ a fundamentally offensive weapon system - the tank - defensively.

        However, it usually tends to be somewhat harder and less effective, to use a fundamentally defensive AFV offensively; but it's not impossible especially if you have a defensive AFV that is as flexible as the S 103 was for a defensive AFV.

        With their doctrine and their S 103, the Swedes had both a fundamentally defensive doctrine and a fundamentally defensive AFV by designed purpose. It was uniquely and purposely made to fit that defensive doctrine and it fitted it like a glove. Perfectly.


        Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
        " ... When the Abrams was designed and fielded, the US Army's doctrine was even called Active Defense and was designed to whittle down Soviet penetrations via formulaic and mathematical attrition. ... "
        Yes of course, but the difference here is that the US Army proposed to use a fundamentally offensive weapon system - the tank - in a defensive role at least initially. There could even be a limited amount of phased withdrawal if necessary. The US and other Western tanks could then go over to the offensive (counter-offensive) if/when required, once the Soviet penetrations had been blunted. Offensive action is what the tank was always made for.


        Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
        " ... I know we've been down this road before and shouldn't be getting into this debate in this thread, so I apologize."
        Yes, we have, haven't we! ... but no apology necessary. It was going to come out sooner or later!
        Mate, the two of us see eye-to-eye on a great many things. Most things. But every now and then we may strike something where we just won't agree and this is looking like one of those things.

        Love it or hate it, the question of whether the S 103 is or is not truly a tank will remain controversial among armour enthusiasts. Good men and true will fall on both sides of the line.


        Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
        " .. . I'll save any more debate on this for the thread seeking suggestions on what tanks to include.
        As already stated, so far as I am concerned the S 103 already has its ticket to this dance. From my end of the deal, it's to be accepted as a tank for the purpose of the tournament. The only things that could keep it out are (a) if it is edged out by what the members deem to be more 'worthy' designs, so that no slot is left vacant for it or (b) If opposition to its inclusion is overwhelming, which I doubt will happen.


        Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
        Re: Tiger tanks, I'd be comfortable with combining them or leaving Ausf.B out. It was essentially a new vehicle, but I'm not sure it really has a place of its own on a list of influential or significant tanks.
        Thanks, taken on board.
        Last edited by panther3485; 06 Apr 14, 12:32.
        "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


        • #34
          Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
          Just so I'm understanding you correctly, let me reiterate your points. A tank is defined by physical characteristics...
          So far, so good.
          ... that overlap with several other classes of vehicles.
          The goal is to get past conflicting and overlapping classes of vehicles.

          BMP and Merkava are in the same class of vehicle.
          The BMP and Merkava are both armoured, tracked vehicles with a turret that carry passengers, hence they fall outside the criteria I suggested. Too bad for the Merkava.

          In our poll on the most significant and influential tanks in history, we should give special consideration to tanks designed to float,
          Not necessarily. I was pointing out that there are no other tanks that have the amphibious capability of the T-40. That should be considered as part of its mobility by my system, without getting sidetracked with "amphibious tank" versus "reconnaissance tank" versus "light tank". The T-40 was also the basis of the T-30, T-60, T-70 and SU-76, so it was actually quite important, a small tank with inner bigness that is often overlooked.

          Anyway, to whittle the list down to size, there have to be some hard decisions made about what to include If the T-40 or Merkava any other tank is given special consideration or exemption, the selection process becomes overly complicated and ultimately unfair. JMHO. Keep it simple.

          ... but World War I tanks were not historically significant or influential except for the FT.
          Like I said, I hadn't considered the First World War. As far as tank designs, the FT-17 stands out because it was sold and licensed and copied by so many nations and served into the 1940s. In contrast, the British were quick to ditch sponsons in favour of turrets, although the tadpole design lingered right into the 1940s with the Char B.2 and the Churchill. The wartime British and German tanks should be included for their historical importance, but the Christie, Carden-Lloyd and the Vickers 6-ton are also in this timeframe. Any of those, or the FT-17, were far more important in the evolution of tanks and armoured warfare than the first British designs.

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

          A contentedly cantankerous old fart

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
            What are you basing this on? Just how the tank looks? Certainly not why it was designed, how it was organized or used, or what it was capable of (especially versus contemporary tanks).
            Firstly, i know that it is classified as a Tank. Frankly i was influenced by a former post of Scott that said one requirement of a Tank sould be a rotating turret.
            Secondly, the S-103 reminds me very much of certain Panzerjäger of WW2 that are ruled out for our tourney. It features a low silhouette, no turret, small crew etc. It's capabilities, especially when it comes to Tank killing, reminded me of a Tank Destroyer. Also it is/was a very defensive system AFAIK. I thought it better to make a clear cut here. But it's in the game anyways as i understood...
            Last edited by Hanov; 07 Apr 14, 05:48.
            One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
              So far, so good....
              Thanks for the clarification. I'll respectfully go on record to disagree with virtually the entirety of your thoughts on this topic.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                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.
                I'd disagree based on two points: 1) The Swedes knew exactly what a TD/SPA was, and designated this as a Tank. 2) The S103 was designed to be the Swedish MBT for the era. As opposed to TDs/SPA whose purpose is to operate with and augment armored or mech infantry forces, and constructed alongside a 'traditional' tank. It would be like saying that if the Germans in the 30s had built nothing but Stugs, designated them as a Panzer, and used them for the role of Panzer without purposefully developing a 'traditional' medium tank, then you could argue that indeed it is a Panzer. While I agree that it is handicapped without a turret for offensive operations, there were quite a number of true tanks up into 1942 or so that also had fixed or limited-traverse main guns.

                Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                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.
                I disagree about the BMP and Bradley being in the mix. Both were, from the drawing board to deployment in the field and doctrine, made to be Infantry fighting Vehicles. I agree that the 100mm gun on the BMP3 is practically Tank territory, and that its armor is heavier than some tanks, but I disagree that it is a 'tank'.

                A proper litmus test would be to ask these two questions:

                1) Does it carry/Can it carry more than one passenger inside the hull in addition to the crew?

                2) If yes, was carrying said passengers a primary design/doctrine purpose, or was it an afterthought/field expedient/emergency preparation?

                If carrying passengers was a primary design consideration, then it is an APC/IFV, no matter how strong it is. If it is an expedient or emergency method, like the Merk's ability to carry another Merk's crew to safety, then it is not an IFV/APC.
                Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                Comment


                • #38
                  Work on the list so far ....

                  OK guys, this isn't the final list; not by a long shot. I'm just posting it to show how far I've got. Progress has been a bit slower than anticipated but things are still coming along nicely.

                  I say again, this is not, repeat not the finished product by any means; far from it because as you will all see straight away, with the list in its present form there are currently still more than 16 candidates in each one of the four brackets (time groups).
                  I see this as a positive thing, to start from a larger number of tanks and then trim the list down. (Even though it means more work at the beginning, it hopefully saves some later. )
                  Please also note that I have already done some combining of types to reduce the numbers, but there are substantial parts of the list where more combining should almost certainly be done (some of the Chinese types in bracket 4, for example?). So if you think I should have combined some types and haven't, chances are it's not intentional; it's more likely just part of the obvious fact that I haven't finished yet.

                  I decided to put the list up for examination now, at this very early stage in the process, for these reasons:

                  • It gives you all something to chew on, while we are preparing to get this thing off the ground.
                  • You can if you wish, offer some feedback and ideas as to what you believe should or should not be included in the starting line-up, and why. This includes suggesting any important tanks that might still be missing as well as those you believe should get the chop.
                  • Everyone can immediately see that more 'culling' is required, although there is still quite a number of types that could easily be combined as a single entry.

                  In passing your comments, please note that for reasons already briefly touched on, I have for the most part intentionally kept fairly well away from 'light' tanks as a class, with certain notable exceptions.

                  So, I say once again that this is very much still a "work in progress" but any suggestions, comments or questions are warmly invited:


                  Bracket 1: 1916-1938 (Infancy and childhood of the tank - a new weapon shows some promise)

                  Tank Mk I/II/III/IV Britain
                  Tank Mk V Britain
                  Tank Mk VIII 'International' Britain
                  Medium Mk. A/B 'Whippet' Britain
                  Vickers Medium Mk I/II Britain
                  A1E1 Independent Britain
                  Vickers 6-Ton Britain
                  Infantry Tank Mk I Matilda 1 Britain
                  LT-35/PzKpfw 35(t) Czechoslovakia/Germany
                  LT-38/PzKpfw 38(t) Czechoslovakia/Germany
                  Schneider CA-1 France
                  Saint Chamond France
                  Renault FT-17 France
                  Char 2C France
                  A7V Germany
                  PzKpfw III Ausf. A-D Germany
                  PzKpfw IV Ausf. A-B Germany
                  Fiat 2000 Italy
                  Medium Tank Type 89A/B Japan
                  T-24 Soviet Union/Russia
                  BT-5/7 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-28 Medium Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-32/35 Heavy Soviet Union/Russia
                  Medium Tank A USA
                  Christie Mediums M1928-36 & T3 USA


                  Bracket 2: 1939-1945 (Adolescence of the tank - rapid development and change)

                  Cruiser Tanks Mk I/II Britain
                  Cruiser Tanks Mk III/IV/IVA Britain
                  Cruiser Tanks Mk V/VI Covenanter/Crusader Britain
                  Cruiser Tank Mk VIII Cromwell Britain
                  Cruiser Tank Comet Britain
                  Infantry Tank Mk I Matilda 1 Britain
                  Infantry Tank Mk II Matilda 2 Britain
                  Infantry Tank Mk III Valentine Britain
                  Infantry Tank Mk IV Churchill Britain
                  Char B1/B1-bis France
                  Char Somua S-35 France
                  FCM-36 France
                  PzKpfw 35(t) Germany
                  PzKpfw 38(t) Germany
                  PzKpfw III Ausf. E-N Germany
                  PzKpfw IV Ausf. C-J Germany
                  Panther Germany
                  Tigers I & II Germany
                  M11/39 Italy
                  M13/40-15/42 Italy
                  P26/40 Italy
                  Medium Tank Type 97 'Chi Ha' Japan
                  T-34 Soviet Union/Russia
                  KV tanks Soviet Union/Russia
                  IS-2 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-44 Soviet Union/Russia
                  Strv M/42 Sweden
                  Medium Tank M2 USA
                  Medium Tank M3 Lee/Grant USA
                  Mediium Tank M4 Sherman USA
                  Heavy Tank M6 USA
                  Medium/Heavy Tank T26/M26 USA


                  Bracket 3: 1946-1979 (Young adulthood - distillation and crystallization of concepts)

                  Centurion Britain
                  Chieftain Britain
                  Conqueror Britain
                  AMX-30 France
                  AMX-13 France
                  Leopard I Germany (W)
                  Vijayanta (Vickers Mk. 1) India
                  Merkava I Israel
                  Type 61 Japan
                  Type 74 Japan
                  IS-3 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-34-85 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-54/T-55 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-62 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-64 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-72 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-10 Soviet Union/Russia
                  Strv 103 Sweden
                  Pz 61 & Pz 68 Switzerland
                  M46 USA
                  M47 USA
                  M48 USA
                  M60/M60A1 USA
                  M103 USA


                  Bracket 4: 1980 on (Maturity - the era of the MBT)

                  TAM Argentina
                  EE T1 Osorio Brazil
                  Challenger I/II Britain
                  Type 80 China
                  Type 85-II China
                  Type 90-II China
                  Type 98 China
                  Type 99 China
                  Leclerc France
                  Leopard II Germany
                  Arjun India
                  Merkava II/III/IV Israel
                  C1 Ariete Italy
                  Type 90 Japan
                  Type 10 Japan
                  Type 88 K1/K1A1 South Korea
                  K2 'Black Panther' South Korea
                  T-55 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-62 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-64 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-72 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-80 Soviet Union/Russia
                  T-90 Soviet Union/Russia
                  Altay Turkey
                  M1/M1A1/M1A2 Abrams USA
                  M60A1/A3 USA


                  OK, that's it for the moment.
                  Last edited by panther3485; 08 Apr 14, 12:31.
                  "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


                  • #39
                    Not a bad list. FWIW, the American "medium A" tank was designated as M1921. References I have say that T-80B and M60A3 entered service in 1978, and Leopard 2 in 1979. Were you looking at when they were most proliferated with the groupings? Nice work so far.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                      Not a bad list. FWIW, the American "medium A" tank was designated as M1921.


                      Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                      References I have say that T-80B and M60A3 entered service in 1978, and Leopard 2 in 1979. Were you looking at when they were most proliferated with the groupings? Nice work so far.
                      The Leopard 2 in Bracket 3 or the period of 'young adulthood' would be a nasty ruler.
                      I think it's the perfect example of a MBT:
                      developed at the end of that period and first inroduced at the turn to the present period 'Maturity'. A Tank/Panzer still competing today... Therefore imo a perfect example for Bracket 4.
                      Last edited by Hanov; 08 Apr 14, 17:34.
                      One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Well, it depends on what we're looking for. We're not looking for the best or most capable tank as I understand it (even if we were, T-80B and T-64B might have something to say about Leopard 2A0 being the "ruler" of that timeframe... ). But with vehicles like Centurion and T-54/5 in that bracket, I'm not sure Leo 2 would have such a cakewalk in a poll on the most significant or influential vehicle. Either way is fine; just curious if we were looking at when the tanks were introduced or when they were most numerous in service, perhaps.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                          " ... References I have say that T-80B and M60A3 entered service in 1978, and Leopard 2 in 1979. Were you looking at when they were most proliferated with the groupings? ... "
                          Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                          Well, it depends on what we're looking for. We're not looking for the best or most capable tank as I understand it (even if we were, T-80B and T-64B might have something to say about Leopard 2A0 being the "ruler" of that timeframe... ). But with vehicles like Centurion and T-54/5 in that bracket, I'm not sure Leo 2 would have such a cakewalk in a poll on the most significant or influential vehicle. Either way is fine; just curious if we were looking at when the tanks were introduced or when they were most numerous in service, perhaps.
                          Chris, answering from work so not much time and I can explain more fully later.

                          Periods when a tank was most numerous and active, or most significant, or both, depending on the case. For example, with Leopard II first appearing in service in 1979, I don't think the numbers for the 46-79 bracket would be sufficient to warrant having it in there. Unlike WW2, which is only 6 years (albeit 6 years in which a heck of a lot happened), 46-79 and 80-present day are both very long periods and a tank that just scrapes in at the very end (end being the last 1-2 years) arguably might not be appropriately included. For similar reasons I have left, for example, the Char B1/bis and the Somua S-35 out of the 16-38 time bracket, even though both were in service during the last couple of years - approximately - of that bracket. Further reading showed me that relatively few became unit active during that time (compared to '39-40); and the great majority were delivered and put into physical unit service during 39-40.

                          By contrast, other tanks, such as some of the Soviet/Russian types, have large number and widespread representation over two or more time brackets.

                          I hope that goes some way towards explaining it. With the M60A3, we could include it in both periods but how many were actually physically deployed 78-79, compared to 80-on? I am ready to receive further information on this.

                          Also, in a tournament with these criteria there are other reasons a tank might be inluded across more than one bracket so it's all up for discussion and negotiation. All reasonable ideas can be considered, bearing in mind that we have to reduce to 16 types in each bracket.


                          Edit:

                          Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                          "Not a bad list. FWIW, the American "medium A" tank was designated as M1921. ... "
                          Yeah, thanks I did know that but according to one of the reference books I've been working from there was also a very different looking Christie type designated M1921 and originally, I had included that Christie model in my list so I didn't want confusion between the two. After one of our recent exchanges I amended the Christie entry to start from the M1928 (as you will no doubt have noticed); so I could have gone back and changed the US "Medium A" to M1921 but it got lost in the rush.


                          Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                          " ... Nice work so far."
                          Thanks.
                          Last edited by panther3485; 09 Apr 14, 09:11.
                          "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


                          • #43
                            If it comes down to it, then for the sake of reducing the numbers, I'd say we could always put 1 tank per nation, and then if there's open space put a second tank if they made two notable ones.

                            For instance the M60A3 is a great tank, but in the 1980+ generation it wasn't revolutionary or notable, it was more or less a bridge between the M60A1/A2 and the M1 series.
                            Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                              Thanks for the clarification. I'll respectfully go on record to disagree with virtually the entirety of your thoughts on this topic.
                              That's okay. I'm just trying to keep it simple.

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

                              A contentedly cantankerous old fart

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                                ... such as some of the Soviet/Russian types, have large number and widespread representation over two or more time brackets.
                                I would ditch the T-24 as neither successful nor numerous nor innovative. The T-29 would be a better candidate, if you need one. I would also ditch the T-44, which was too late for the war, built in limited numbers and replaced almost immediately by the T-54. Likewise, the M26 and M24 missed the war and didn't really see combat until Korea.

                                There are a few light tanks I would nominate, but one that screams out is the M24 Chaffee, which was very widely exported and is probably still in service somewhere. I would also add the Chinese Type 59 family, developed incrementally from the T-55 over thirty years. The Type 69 and 79 were quite sophisticated compared to their granddaddy.

                                Regards
                                Scott Fraser
                                Last edited by Scott Fraser; 09 Apr 14, 08:56.
                                Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

                                A contentedly cantankerous old fart

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X