Introduction - Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign

[panther3485]

Hi members, and a warm welcome to the

Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign.

There are 64 candidates starting in Round 1, with a total of 6 Rounds for you guys - the members of ACG - to decide which was the most significant and/or influential tank of all time.

Remember everyone, this is not a “greatest or best tank” campaign/poll set. It’s more about taking a step or two back and considering the overall significance and/or influence of each tank design, both (a) within the context of its own time and (b) against the entire history of the tank since 1916.

Among the factors you might wish to consider when evaluating each pair of candidates, may I suggest the following as possible starting points:

(1) Net value to user nation/s; including - but not only - the tank’s combat record; considering the amount of exposure if any.

(2) Establishment of a worthwhile edge, if any, over competing designs (that is, actual or potential competing designs); and if such an edge was established, how important was it and how long was it maintained?

(3) The ‘ubiquity factor’: Numbers produced and longevity of service.To be fair, I suggest the numbers factor needs to be tempered to a certain extent at least, with considerations of user needs and the circumstances of the time.

(4) Geographical extent of service: With how many nations and in how many locations around the World has this tank served?

(5) Design innovation: Incorporation of new and/or unique features; or being a “first” for something of significance.

(6) Any short-term influence on tank design.

(7) Any long-term influence on tank design.

(8) Any other significant short-term impacts.

(9) Any other significant long-term impacts.

(10) Other factors of any kind that you believe to be relevant.

In other words, points (1) through (9) are just a rough suggested guide to use or not use; as much or as little as you see fit.

Members should feel completely free to factor in any criteria they believe to be appropriate; and they can assign as much or as little weight as they like to any factor that comes within their deliberations; including the ones suggested here.

Indeed, if you wish you can simply vote for a tank because you like it. Let’s face it, many of us will tend to do that to some extent anyway whether we get ‘permission’ or not.

The opportunity to learn as we go is always there and I know many of you will use that opportunity to good effect. However, this campaign is also very much about enjoying ourselves.

Best to all,
panther3485

[GCoyote]

Everyone - Don't forget to check page two!

Admin note: Default preferences probably limit most user's view of the forums to about 30 threads per page. If so, don't forget to vote in the polls on page two of this campaign!

Enjoy!

[panther3485]

Additional criteria proposed by members

In addition to the criteria suggested by me, below are 25 ideas and suggestions that came from a number of members when I put the question to them some while ago.

A few of these more or less duplicate some of mine; but IMO many of them add more value to the pot. I have not significantly changed them or 'censored' any that I, personally, thought should not apply. You guys are perfectly capable of making up your own minds about what works, and what does not.

The members' suggestions are offered here anonymously, as further food for thought before casting your votes:


Proposed Criteria for Most Significant/Influential Tank


(1) How much impact they made to the conflicts of their time period.
(2) How much influence they had on their "descendents"
(3) How influential Pro and/or Con were they to the doctrine and actual practice of waging war.
(4) 'greatest impact on the battlefield'
(5) 'duration of combat service';
(6) how influential they were on succeeding designs,
(7) how they compared with contemporary designs,
(8) durability/length of service.
(9) Firepower
(10) Mobility
(11) Armour quality
(12) Numbers produced
(13) Reliability
(14)Logistical support required (How far can it go before needing fuel and ammo)
(15) Impact on the battlefield
(16) Maintenance intervals
(17) The burden should be on service. A tank that was widely used should be included. Tanks like the M26, IS-3 or T-44 may not have sufficient length of service in a Second World War context.
(18) It will be necessary to determine how well the vehicle meets the three basic requirements: mobility, protection and firepower. Every tank is a compromise.
(19) At some point reliability must enter the equation, either as it affects mobility or service. Sound design and serviceability are also part of that.
(20) Another factor may be cost, raw materials, manpower and energy needed to build each tank. This was particularly important during the Second World War.
(21) innovation
(22) 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.
(23) The timeline is important. A tank should be assessed against its peers, other tanks in service during the year it was introduced, not against tanks designed later. It was an arms race, in the classical style, so it was important to be at the front of the pack.
(24) It has to be a tank. If it lacks a turret, carries passengers or has wheels it is not a tank. It doesn't have to float, but it can, for extra points.
(25) If different production versions of tanks are to be considered, it should be directed to significant changes in the armament: T-34, Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf E, M4A3 versus T-34-85, Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf H, M4A3(76). There many not be enough pigeonholes.





Oh yeah, and if I can be permitted to echo what Gary has just said, don't forget to check page 2. There are 32 polls and for most of you, these will probably not all be on page 1. Wouldn't want any of you guys to miss some!

(Round 2 will only have 16 polls, so there should be no need for page shuffling after this round. )

[Rojik]

A minor point of order:

I've noticed that the comments suggest that the votes are going the way of the better tank (in real life or theoretical) rather than the most influential tank.

Not that I am telling people how to vote, but just that I think people are missing the point of the contest.

And I'm a little bit upset that the MkI 'Mother' wasn't included. Without her we'd have no contest to talk about.

[panther3485]

A minor point of order:

I've noticed that the comments suggest that the votes are going the way of the better tank (in real life or theoretical) rather than the most influential tank.

Not that I am telling people how to vote, but just that I think people are missing the point of the contest.

Yep, and it's been explained very clearly. My experience is that no matter how clearly you explain such a concept, a few folks will vote first and think afterwards. Or think up the wrong way. Or barely think at all!
The members have also been given leeway to vote on the criteria they believe to be appropriate, which is what they'd do anyway even if we didn't say it.

These are some of the things I've observed over a few years of running polls and I don't think there's much we can do about it, short of hitting people over the head with repetition which kinda takes the fun away and we start getting seen as too serious.

And I'm a little bit upset that the MkI 'Mother' wasn't included. Without her we'd have no contest to talk about.

The Mk. I production tank was included, though. 'Mother' was simply the prototype of the Mk. I; so even if she's not there, the first five of her children (Mks I-V) are. Knowing what mothers are usually like, I think she'd be happy with that.

[Checkertail20]

How long does each round last?

[panther3485]

How long does each round last?

The duration of the first round was set at just under 4 weeks but as the number of tanks grows smaller by elimination, round duration can be somewhat reduced. The whole thing (6 rounds) should not exceed 16 weeks. It may be subject to review if considered necessary; but the intended outline is as follows:

Round 1 - 64 candidates in 4 separate groups as currently formatted. (4 wks)
Round 2 - 32 candidates still separated into the same 4 groups (3 wks)
Round 3 - 16 candidates, 2 groups (1 & 2 combined, 3 & 4 combined) (3 wks)
Round 4 - (Quarter-final) 8 candidates, now in a single group (2 wks)
Round 5 - (Semi-Final) 4 tanks (2 wks)
Round 6 - (Final) 2 tanks (2 wks)

I think 2 weeks is a reasonable minimum time for a round, allowing for members who cannot be online as frequently or regularly as some others the opportunity to vote, and to discuss the various tanks if they wish.

[Torien]

The duration of the first round was set at just under 4 weeks but as the number of tanks grows smaller by elimination, round duration can be somewhat reduced. The whole thing (6 rounds) should not exceed 16 weeks. It may be subject to review if considered necessary; but the intended outline is as follows:

Round 1 - 64 candidates in 4 separate groups as currently formatted. (4 wks)
Round 2 - 32 candidates still separated into the same 4 groups (3 wks)
Round 3 - 16 candidates, 2 groups (1 & 2 combined, 3 & 4 combined) (3 wks)
Round 4 - (Quarter-final) 8 candidates, now in a single group (2 wks)
Round 5 - (Semi-Final) 4 tanks (2 wks)
Round 6 - (Final) 2 tanks (2 wks)

I think 2 weeks is a reasonable minimum time for a round, allowing for members who cannot be online as frequently or regularly as some others the opportunity to vote, and to discuss the various tanks if they wish.

Looks more than fair to me!

(Not that you were asking...)

[Merkava188]

Will there be a ribbon awarded for this campaign?

[panther3485]

Will there be a ribbon awarded for this campaign?

I will need the assistance of senior staff to make that happen; but yes, I am planning on having a ribbon for it.

[panther3485]

Going well

I have to say, I am very pleased with the way this campaign has been going.

Up to this moment, 101 ACG members have cast 2,464 votes across 32 polls, in the first round to decide the most significant/influential tank.

So far, the two polls with the highest participation rates are Panther vs T-34, with 90 members voting; and Centurion vs M26/46/47 with 84 votes. The two lowest participation rates are in Vickers Medium vs Christie Mediums, with 66 members voting; and A1E1 Independent vs Char 2C, with 69 votes. The average per-poll participation rate is 77 votes.
All factors considered, I think that's pretty good.

For those yet to participate, we have almost 2 weeks left before Round 1 closes. Another five rounds will follow.

At this point for Round 1, although we can see some very clear likely winners (and a few virtual certainties) there are other polls where it's very close. I wouldn't try to predict all the outcomes just yet; but starting next weekend - by which time we should have more of an idea on the closer margins -I'll be making some firm decisions for the pairings in Round 2.

[Mountain Man]

Regardless of outcome, outstanding work Panther!

[panther3485]

Regardless of outcome, outstanding work Panther!

Thanks mate! It's the support and participation of the members that makes it work; and also makes it worthwhile.

[Arthwys]

Regardless of outcome, outstanding work Panther!

What he said...

[Merkava188]

How many times can we vote in each round?