Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposed tank 'campaign' (tournament)

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    Drop the Matilda II, the Pz-III. In fact, scrutinise each division's list to see if developmental vehicles have been overlooked. Too often "name brands" get the glory but the hard work went into something now forgotten, so if the aim is to find important models in the development of the modern tank, we need to identify which designs tested the ideas we now appreciate, not which designs got churned out because the government of the day needed a working mousetrap.
    The aim isn't just to find those. We are being rather more ambitious here because the aim is to combine that single factor, with other factors that might reasonably entitle a tank to be labelled as significant and influential for the entire history of the tank, as well as within its own particular timeframe.

    So of course, while we want to avoid unnecessary complexity as much as we reasonably can - consistent with the goals - obviously it's not going to be quite as simple as selecting models with high developmental significance.
    A further complication is that the emphasis will tend to shift from one period to another depending upon what was happening around the World at the time. For example, the balance of criteria will be somewhat different between times of relative peace and times of intense war, and especially global war. You alluded to this yourself in an earlier post, when you said ...
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    I think "impact on battlefield" has to be an if applicable criterion. For much of the interwar period there was too little warfare where tanks were involved, and in the Cold War period it was either US or Soviet designs against minimal opposition.
    Based on the proposed title for this campaign/tournament, which is
    'Most Significant/Influential Tank', so far we appear to have agreed on the following criteria:

    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.


    We also appear to have agreed on at least two conditions in relation to applying the criteria:

    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.*

    (*Naturally, neither of these conditions can apply to a tank that never saw first-line service or combat; but there are a few cases where a design was of sufficient importance in other areas to merit inclusion on the list.)


    So, developmental significance obviously is an important consideration and the T-44 is a fairly strong candidate in that particular aspect. However, the other criteria also need to be weighed into the mix. This might be less critical in time brackets where the competition is not so intense and there is more latitude available, but in the WW2 and 46-79 brackets - the only two where the T-44 could conceivably be placed - it is very intense indeed.

    I ask again, and based on the criteria and other considerations as shown above, what would we chop out to fit the T-44 in?
    Last edited by panther3485; 12 Apr 14, 05:00.
    "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


    • #62
      Told you - the Matilda II. How much does this design bring to the table?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
        Told you - the Matilda II. How much does this design bring to the table?
        What, you want me to do all the work?

        I'm ready to read your case, and consider it fairly, when you make it. And when you do so, don't forget the time difference between the two designs. One began its service at the start of WW2; designed shortly before the war and already in series production before the war started. It also just barely made it into service by the war's first month (September 1939). Admittedly, it was already glaringly obsolescent by mid-war primarily due to there being no readily practicable method to up-gun it.

        The other, IIRC, commenced limited service during the last year of the war? Just what was the extent of the T-44's active participation in WW2? My understanding is that it is roughly equivalent to that of the US T26/M26. In other words, relatively very few tanks actually got involved in the fighting and those that did, did so when the war was all but over anyway.

        You will note that we already decided to remove the M26 from the WW2 line-up, and consider it only for the 1946-79 bracket, for similar reasons. Surely there can be no doubt that due to its extreme lateness in the 39-45 Bracket, any influence the T-44 had either on tank design or tank combat was most certainly post-WW2? Therefore, could you also please make a compelling case for including the T-44 in the 46-79 group?
        "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


        • #64
          Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
          What, you want me to do all the work?

          I'm ready to read your case, and consider it fairly, when you make it. And when you do so, don't forget the time difference between the two designs. One began its service at the start of WW2; designed shortly before the war and already in series production before the war started. It also just barely made it into service by the war's first month (September 1939). Admittedly, it was already glaringly obsolescent by mid-war primarily due to there being no readily practicable method to up-gun it.

          The other, IIRC, commenced limited service during the last year of the war? Just what was the extent of the T-44's active participation in WW2? My understanding is that it is roughly equivalent to that of the US T26/M26. In other words, relatively very few tanks actually got involved in the fighting and those that did, did so when the war was all but over anyway.

          You will note that we already decided to remove the M26 from the WW2 line-up, and consider it only for the 1946-79 bracket, for similar reasons. Surely there can be no doubt that due to its extreme lateness in the 39-45 Bracket, any influence the T-44 had either on tank design or tank combat was most certainly post-WW2? Therefore, could you also please make a compelling case for including the T-44 in the 46-79 group?
          The T-44 never saw combat in WW2. AFAIK, the only time it was used operationally was in Hungary, 1956.


          Regards
          Scott Fraser
          Attached Files
          Last edited by Scott Fraser; 12 Apr 14, 15:48.
          Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

          A contentedly cantankerous old fart

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
            What, you want me to do all the work?

            I'm ready to read your case, and consider it fairly, when you make it. And when you do so, don't forget the time difference between the two designs. One began its service at the start of WW2; designed shortly before the war and already in series production before the war started. It also just barely made it into service by the war's first month (September 1939). Admittedly, it was already glaringly obsolescent by mid-war primarily due to there being no readily practicable method to up-gun it.

            The other, IIRC, commenced limited service during the last year of the war? Just what was the extent of the T-44's active participation in WW2? My understanding is that it is roughly equivalent to that of the US T26/M26. In other words, relatively very few tanks actually got involved in the fighting and those that did, did so when the war was all but over anyway.

            You will note that we already decided to remove the M26 from the WW2 line-up, and consider it only for the 1946-79 bracket, for similar reasons. Surely there can be no doubt that due to its extreme lateness in the 39-45 Bracket, any influence the T-44 had either on tank design or tank combat was most certainly post-WW2? Therefore, could you also please make a compelling case for including the T-44 in the 46-79 group?
            Of course I want you to do all the work. you think I'm completely silly?

            I guess that there will be a lot of niggling and fretting at what should and shouldn't be included in which category, just due to when designs were given, prototypes built and production authorised or accepted into stock.

            WRT the T-44, it is the conceptual precursor of the T-54/55 series, introducing most of the refinements that they showed, but with a less extensive career. That it remained secret for so long is indicative of its importance to the Red Army.
            I'd also give the IS-3 an extension to include the IS-10, the bigger brother.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
              " ... WRT the T-44, it is the conceptual precursor of the T-54/55 series, introducing most of the refinements that they showed, but with a less extensive career. That it remained secret for so long is indicative of its importance to the Red Army. ... "
              Yep, that's pretty much the way I see the T-44; as an intermediate step between T-34 and T-54.


              Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
              " ... I'd also give the IS-3 an extension to include the IS-10, the bigger brother."
              I see some merit in that idea and the precedent has already been set with some other types. "IS-3 - T-10" would do it for me if it's valid. Or, would the T-10 have virtually no components in common with the IS-3? IF so, then maybe not.
              "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


              • #67
                The IS-10 is a longer and wider beast, but shares a significant number of components. However, like any series that has modification heaped on modification, a case can be made that the final model might only share paint with the original.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Panther

                  Thanks for all your energy and effort you are putting into this one.

                  Most importantly, you've taking advice from many in this thread to find common interest in planning and producing this thread. That is always difficult to do in a public forum as you try to balance individual perspectives, perception and emotions with a common goal...While trying not to be bogged down.

                  Bottom line, we should not forget that it is your initiative and therefore your rules. I'm looking forward to play

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Definitely. Panther deserves more rep than I can realistically give for his dedication on this topic.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      If we're content to lump both Tigers together, it wouldn't be a big jump to conglomerate IS-3 and T-10, I'd think.
                      Originally posted by Capt AFB View Post
                      Panther

                      Thanks for all your energy and effort you are putting into this one.

                      Most importantly, you've taking advice from many in this thread to find common interest in planning and producing this thread. That is always difficult to do in a public forum as you try to balance individual perspectives, perception and emotions with a common goal...While trying not to be bogged down.

                      Bottom line, we should not forget that it is your initiative and therefore your rules. I'm looking forward to play
                      Agreed.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Humble apology ....

                        I must apologize to all interested members for the delay getting this campaign/tournament up and running.

                        The first obstacle was that I could not get my Photobucket (the host site I use for my tank pics) to work, no matter how much I tried. I've decided to 'bite the bullet' and change to another site for my photos.
                        However, this was not the most important reason for the delay. Without going into too much detail, I was suffering some fairly serious depression due mainly to issues in my personal life. Simply put, I felt emotionally drained just about every day and simply could not summon the required energy and enthusiasm for anything extra.

                        I have now got to the point where I feel that I can cope and have come to terms with things within my own mind and spirit; so I've reached the 'turning point' of being able to largely put those personal issues behind me and move on.

                        During this week, I will determine a suitable alternative host site for my tank pics and re-commence work on this campaign/tournament. Thanks to all you great guys for the support and enthusiasm you offered me when this whole idea began. The assembly of concise 'data sheets' for each tank type will begin over the next few days (I already have most of the data, it only needs to be put together). I will also finalize the initial 'pairings' for the first round/s.

                        I will shortly be seeking support and the necessary access/permissions from senior Staff/Admins, to help set this thing up.

                        Apologies once again for dropping the baton. It is now back in my hand.
                        "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


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
                          So far, so good. The goal is to get past conflicting and overlapping classes of vehicles.



                          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.



                          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.



                          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
                          How about the Merkava CAN carry a couple of grunts but would probably PREFER to carry extra main gun rounds instead?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by flash View Post
                            How about the Merkava CAN carry a couple of grunts but would probably PREFER to carry extra main gun rounds instead?
                            ... or evacuate wounded crew members from another Israeli AFV?
                            "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


                            • #74
                              Welcome back Panther after your "blip".

                              With regard to longevity of service,do you think its importance should be played down somewhat?

                              For instance,while the T34/85 was a very good tank in the 40s it was maintained in service through to the 80/90s not because it was still good but just because it was cheap and there were many of them.
                              That doesn't make it a good tank.

                              I think high marks should be awarded for the time a vehicle enters service and if that vehicle doesn't change and stays in service then it shouldn't be carried over to your next time period because the fact that it did merely reflects its ubiquity,not its value.

                              eg.

                              T34/85- High marks in 45.
                              T34/85- No marks in 55.

                              Centurion Mk1-high marks in 45.
                              ----------- Mk3-High marks in 55.
                              ----------- Mk5/2-High marks in 65.

                              Of course,there's another way of looking at it,if by the time the 70s rolled around all of the T34s had been handed down to nations that hadn't previously had an armoured contingent and if that then means that they have an advantage over their equally backward enemy then the T34 is indeed the best tank in theatre.

                              It's all too complicated for my tiny mind.

                              By the way,can I play?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by flash View Post
                                Welcome back Panther after your "blip".

                                With regard to longevity of service,do you think its importance should be played down somewhat?

                                For instance,while the T34/85 was a very good tank in the 40s it was maintained in service through to the 80/90s not because it was still good but just because it was cheap and there were many of them.
                                That doesn't make it a good tank.

                                I think high marks should be awarded for the time a vehicle enters service and if that vehicle doesn't change and stays in service then it shouldn't be carried over to your next time period because the fact that it did merely reflects its ubiquity,not its value.

                                eg.

                                T34/85- High marks in 45.
                                T34/85- No marks in 55.

                                Centurion Mk1-high marks in 45.
                                ----------- Mk3-High marks in 55.
                                ----------- Mk5/2-High marks in 65.

                                Of course,there's another way of looking at it,if by the time the 70s rolled around all of the T34s had been handed down to nations that hadn't previously had an armoured contingent and if that then means that they have an advantage over their equally backward enemy then the T34 is indeed the best tank in theatre.

                                It's all too complicated for my tiny mind.

                                By the way,can I play?
                                Of course you can play, flash. In fact, I'll be rather put out if you don't!

                                When the time comes to vote, members can put as much or as little emphasis as they like on longevity (and, indeed, numbers & ubiquity) of service. Same applies to the other criteria at each member's own discretion and judgement.

                                The suggested criteria will be offered with short explanations; but it will be up to each of us to apportion weight and to decide as we see fit.
                                Last edited by panther3485; 27 May 14, 11:58.
                                "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

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X