Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Introduction - Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign

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

  • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

    ...This is why I am out of my comfort zone when analyzing tanks not from WW2...
    Nick, I find it interesting that you would admit this while at the same time going on with your assertion of how the voting should have been in this final, between two tanks not from WWII.

    I hope your recovery is going well but I think you could spend the time better than analyzing the voting habits/trends of voters on the poll and fitting it in to an imagined bias you believe exists. Remember that while the ideal voting criteria would be significance and/or influence there were other criteria that were "allowed" here. The possibilities for being frustrated at the end should have been realized long ago and that the Renault won in what you thought should be a close race with the Marks is should be much less frustrating than if the T-34 won, or worse.
    John

    Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

    Comment


    • Fighting on the Internet. Nobody wins.

      “When you're in jail, a good friend will be trying to bail you out. A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'.”
      ― Groucho Marx

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        Most people have voted for what they consider the most I/S tank based on actual tank elements. It also has been obvious that a few have voted on other factors. However, these have not effected the final outcome, only the margin of the FT victory.


        Now I do. Its been part of the learning curve .
        I understand your anger. When one gets the feeling that people didn't vote 'properly' like not considering the criteria that were set out for this campaign one easily fears that the results could be 'wrong'.

        But you said it yourself: this campaign added to your learning curve. You 'evolved' during the campaign. You would even vote differently in one and the other vote now, would you?

        I'd vote different and more consistent if we would repeat the polls. Just because my criteria changed throughout the campaign. You and the others influenced me in my weighting of the criteria that determine the most significant/influential Armour of all times...
        Last edited by Hanov; 21 Oct 14, 14:53.
        One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Checkertail20 View Post
          Fighting on the Internet. Nobody wins.

          Ergo, nobody loses. Where's the harm in that?
          John

          Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hanov View Post
            I understand your anger. When one gets the feeling that people didn't vote 'properly' like not considering the criteria that were set out for this campaign one easily fears that the results could be 'wrong'.

            But you said it yourself: this campaign added to your learning curve. You 'evolved' during the campaign. You would even vote differently in one and the other vote now, would you?

            I'd vote different and more consistent if we would repeat the polls. Just because my criteria changed throughout the campaign. You and the others influenced me in my weighting of the criteria that determine the most significant/influential Armour of all times...
            Truth be told, my anger started with the best Tank Destroyer poll. Twice as many voted for the US M36 than the UK Achilles. This negatively impacted ACG's reputation on the net imho.

            When comparing these TD's on the basics, they are virtually identical except on four points.

            The British variant was available from day 1 of D-Day.
            The British variant was actually available during the Normandy campaign.
            The British variant could actually take out a Panther on its glacis from day 1 of D-Day.
            The M10 varient was at least 90% US.

            Just my POV.
            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JBark View Post

              That doesn't seem like fun to me. We spend a lot of time discussing WWII, and that's been done and over for a long time.
              Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
              " ... Let's not spoil it with pointless discussion over accusations or resentments that were - in themselves IMO - pointless."
              To the "pointless" I would also add, destructive.

              Further constructive discussion is welcome, of course.

              All too easy for the thread to be closed. Better to have no discussion, than continued discussion that is destructive and pointless. Please note my comments are not directed towards any particular individual and certainly not specifically towards you.

              But I'm fed up with the crap and I'd rather see it closed if the crap continues. I no longer care who started it. I just want it finished. Enough already.

              Last edited by panther3485; 21 Oct 14, 18:57.
              "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


              • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                Truth be told, my anger started with...
                My earlier post that panther quoted was meant to be tongue in cheek. Above though is the root of the issue, IMHO. Don't get that angry over this stuff. This is the internet, you are interacting with whatever boob got access to a computer, no questions asked. Any nutcase like me can jump on this bandwagon, don't let them foul up your day.
                John

                Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                Comment


                • I must say I really enjoyed this campaign, and some of the debates and info' to back them up are worth bottling. I never expected my personal favourite to win, and the tank I assumed to have the most reasonable chance to reach the end didn't quite get there either... but that's expected sometimes.
                  I'm pleased to have been able to cast my vote in it.
                  "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                  Ernest Hemingway.

                  In english "silence" means yelling louder than everyone else.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
                    I must say I really enjoyed this campaign, and some of the debates and info' to back them up are worth bottling. I never expected my personal favourite to win, and the tank I assumed to have the most reasonable chance to reach the end didn't quite get there either... but that's expected sometimes.
                    I'm pleased to have been able to cast my vote in it.
                    Couldn't agree more.

                    My choice for the top spot made the Final 4 but was beaten. When the tournament started I would've bet that the T-34 would win going away. But when it came down to it, arguments and the info presented swayed me to vote for the Renault. And if there was a do over, I'd vote for the Marks over the Sherman. My thinking was that a WW2 tank would win just because that was the war where the tank came into it's own. Never gave much thought to WW1 tanks but this tournament showed me just how influential and significant they were.
                    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
                      " ... Never gave much thought to WW1 tanks but this tournament showed me just how influential and significant they were."
                      My thinking exactly. Certainly IMO, WW2 saw the true blossoming of the tank as a weapon of decision on the grand scale; but the tanks, design development, tank tactics and operational art of WW2 benefited enormously - I would say, critically - from the foundations laid during WW1 and the inter-war years.

                      "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


                      • Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
                        Couldn't agree more.

                        My choice for the top spot made the Final 4 but was beaten. When the tournament started I would've bet that the T-34 would win going away. But when it came down to it, arguments and the info presented swayed me to vote for the Renault. And if there was a do over, I'd vote for the Marks over the Sherman. My thinking was that a WW2 tank would win just because that was the war where the tank came into it's own. Never gave much thought to WW1 tanks but this tournament showed me just how influential and significant they were.
                        I too enjoyed this poll. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I missed round 1, but most people seemed to be voting sensibly (trans: they were agreeing with my choices). Like yourself, I was expecting a final with 2 WW2 designs in it, but was pleasantly surprised to see the two seminal designs duking it out. I think the hardest contests to analyse were between the more modern designs - honestly, how influential or significant have they really been?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                          My thinking exactly. Certainly IMO, WW2 saw the true blossoming of the tank as a weapon of decision on the grand scale; but the tanks, design development, tank tactics and operational art of WW2 benefited enormously - I would say, critically - from the foundations laid during WW1 and the inter-war years.
                          Agreed - most people would be surprised to learn just how much was tried for the first time in WWI and with WWI tanks.

                          I was a bit sad to see the Christie go out in Round 3 - it was a hugely influential design. But I can see that I tend to emphasize influence on future technical developments quite a lot compared with some voters. Still, it lost out to the runner-up Rhomboids, so I guess you can say it did pretty well.

                          The next in my top three was the T-34 which made it to Round 5 and lost to the winner - the FT-17, which also happened to by in my top three.

                          I was - pleasantly - suprised that the Panther never made it beyond Round 1. Reflects well on the ability of the voters to discern between "best" and "significant and influential". It and the Tiger in Round 3 both fell to the T-34, so pairing may have something to do with it, but I still find it very positive that all the buzz about these German tanks did not unduly influence the outcome of the poll.
                          Most surprising was that the Panzer IV made it so far. I had it loose to the Panzer III in Round 1, but I guess it made a lucky pairing with the Cromwell/Comet in Round 2 before falling for the Sherman in Round 3.

                          And I remain somewhat baffled on how much emphasis voters put on the Rhomboids being first in battle

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by cbo View Post
                            Agreed - most people would be surprised to learn just how much was tried for the first time in WWI and with WWI tanks.

                            I was a bit sad to see the Christie go out in Round 3 - it was a hugely influential design. But I can see that I tend to emphasize influence on future technical developments quite a lot compared with some voters. Still, it lost out to the runner-up Rhomboids, so I guess you can say it did pretty well.
                            The Christie design was excellent for afv's up to about 35tons. Once battle/medium tanks became heavier, eg M26/Panther/Centurion, it was an evolutionary dead end.

                            Originally posted by cbo View Post
                            The next in my top three was the T-34 which made it to Round 5 and lost to the winner - the FT-17, which also happened to by in my top three.
                            The T-34 is my most influential/significant tank of WW2. It was the most important tank on the single most important front of WW2, and its impact on the Nazis, influencing all future German designs of WW2 was undeniable. They even considered directly copying the Soviet design. I don't know of any other enemy tank in WW2 that was considered being copied by any WW2 nation, apart from the T-34.

                            Originally posted by cbo View Post
                            I was - pleasantly - suprised that the Panther never made it beyond Round 1. Reflects well on the ability of the voters to discern between "best" and "significant and influential". It and the Tiger in Round 3 both fell to the T-34, so pairing may have something to do with it, but I still find it very positive that all the buzz about these German tanks did not unduly influence the outcome of the poll.
                            The Panther can never be seen to be a best tank because it has significant weaknesses in both of the primary roles of a tank.

                            In the assault role, it simply has too much side profile (it's as tall as a Tiger 1 and even longer than that cat), without affording any better protection than Western designs. Indeed, the Cromwell is a far smaller target, only 5 tons over half the weight of the Pz V, but has superior overall side protection. Part of this is either down to thickness or spaced armour, and some of it is down to that none of the Panthers ammo was stored in armoured bins. Panthers were noted for burning quickly.

                            In the exploitation role, the fact that the Panther is far more likely to need a new final drive unit before a Cromwell needs a change of lubricants speaks volumes (150kms vs 250kms).

                            Further, the Cromwell is unlikely to be considered best tank of WW2, hence my use of it as an example of how flawed the Panther was.

                            Originally posted by cbo View Post
                            Most surprising was that the Panzer IV made it so far. I had it loose to the Panzer III in Round 1, but I guess it made a lucky pairing with the Cromwell/Comet in Round 2 before falling for the Sherman in Round 3.
                            Both the PzIII and PzIV were first produced in limited numbers in 37, the III beating the IV in production by a few months (May vs Oct iirc) but numbers were less than a couple of dozen of each. The reason I chose the PzIV, is that while they have about the same influence overall, the IV was more significant as a tank for a greater period of time, and produced in greater numbers.

                            Originally posted by cbo View Post
                            And I remain somewhat baffled on how much emphasis voters put on the Rhomboids being first in battle
                            The Rhomboid was the shape required for the battlefield at the time. Its significance was that it proved a tracked afv was a viable concept for the battlefield, and that armoured warfare was possible, something no other WW1 afv could have achieved, not even the FT-17.

                            Having said that, the French tank is a worthy winner, albeit I personally would place it number 2 overall. While the British tank proved that tanks and armoured warfare were not just possible, but a certainty, the FT-17 got the basic tank design layout just about perfect, at least for the next century. This is its legacy, ie its design concept.

                            As I said earlier, the Rhomboids represent the ideas behind tanks, ie the mind, against the FT's actual design, ie the body. Since Mind and Body are equal imo, I eventually chose the Rhomboids simply because they were more effective on the modern battlefield when it was more important. This is actually a small point, hence the fact that I think the FT-17 is a worthy winner . Much better than say the T-34, Sherman or God Forbid, one of the Cats .
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              The Rhomboid was the shape required for the battlefield at the time. Its significance was that it proved a tracked afv was a viable concept for the battlefield, and that armoured warfare was possible, something no other WW1 afv could have achieved, not even the FT-17.

                              Having said that, the French tank is a worthy winner, albeit I personally would place it number 2 overall. While the British tank proved that tanks and armoured warfare were not just possible, but a certainty, the FT-17 got the basic tank design layout just about perfect, at least for the next century. This is its legacy, ie its design concept.

                              As I said earlier, the Rhomboids represent the ideas behind tanks, ie the mind, against the FT's actual design, ie the body. Since Mind and Body are equal imo, I eventually chose the Rhomboids simply because they were more effective on the modern battlefield when it was more important. This is actually a small point, hence the fact that I think the FT-17 is a worthy winner . Much better than say the T-34, Sherman or God Forbid, one of the Cats .
                              Oddly, armoured warfare was being pursued on the Eastern Front - the Germans were able to use their vast <cough> stock of armoured cars to reasonable effect, as were the Russians. Because the anglophone world gets little information about the battles and activities of the Eastern Front, these snippets of information are completely missed.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                                Oddly, armoured warfare was being pursued on the Eastern Front - the Germans were able to use their vast <cough> stock of armoured cars to reasonable effect, as were the Russians. Because the anglophone world gets little information about the battles and activities of the Eastern Front, these snippets of information are completely missed.
                                Agreed up to a point .

                                The requirements for an afv in the East was different from that in the West, and remains true to this day. This is due to the vast distances involved and the nature of the terrain. Certainly the need for armoured cars was more of a priority than a tank, and the Russians were certainly buying and using French and British A/C's well before the advent of the tank. However, I would suggest mechanised cavalry rather than armoured warfare is the term best used to describe their use of afv's.
                                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X