Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rnd 4 - M4 Sherman (USA) vs Centurion (Britain)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

    In reality, I'd never neg rep anyone for an opinion, even if it was obviously wrong.

    I do get annoyed when voting is based on nationalist pride rather than poll criteria, just as was blatantly obvious in the Best Tank Destroyer thread.

    Anyway +1 just because you asked for it, and it costs me nothing afterall.

    Edit: You will have to wait because I must have repped you recently .

    IMO this is by far the hardest contest of round 4.
    But the Campaign is worth every minute on the PC. Until these polls i knew there was a Centurion Tank, but i never realized what an amazingly good piece of engineering it was. Anyways, plenty of days to make up my mind.

    What really makes me wonder is why M1, Leo1 and Leo2 made it so far.
    One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Hanov View Post
      What really makes me wonder is why M1, Leo1 and Leo2 made it so far.
      M1 Abrams I can understand to some extent; Leopard 2 almost as much; Leopard 1 IMO was the least credible especially when it was up against the T-64. But then, I don't think any one of us is going to be totally satisfied with all the outcomes of these polls.
      With so many polls and so many members, the chances of me winning the jackpot in Lotto this week would be higher than that.

      ... But if I do win $20,000,000, you and Nick are at the top of the guest list to be invited to Australia for the party! (Air fares and accommodation covered, of course!)
      Last edited by panther3485; 08 Sep 14, 04:32.
      "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


      • #33
        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
        With so many polls and so many members, the chances of me winning the jackpot in Lotto this week would be higher than that.

        ... But if I do win $20,000,000, you and Nick are at the top of the guest list to be invited to Australia for the party! (Air fares and accommodation covered, of course!)

        i hope you'll win. Never been to Australia!
        And it would be fun to meet some ACG fellows in RL.

        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
        M1 Abrams I can understand to some extent; Leopard 2 almost as much; Leopard 1 IMO was the least credible especially when it was up against the T-64. But then, I don't think any one of us is going to be totally satisfied with all the outcomes of these polls.
        Leo1 really(!) annoyed me as well.
        But even M1 and Leo2 progressing that far is IMO 'wrong' if we look at the set-up of this Campaign. They are among the best Tanks today, and are therefore significant. They have evolved and constantly been upgraded to very effective fighting machines, but there are no successors yet that inherited features of these Tanks. The M1 has at least seen extensive action, but AFAIK just vs. older Tanks manned by badly trained crews from countries/armies that have no history of modern warfare. They also had the most modern and strongest Air Force and i don't know what kind of weapon systems behind them.
        The US would have won all those conflicts with older Tanks.

        Anyways, until today i learned a lot from this Campaign, therefore i will rep you every round no matter what!
        One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
          M1 Abrams I can understand to some extent; Leopard 2 almost as much; Leopard 1 IMO was the least credible especially when it was up against the T-64. But then, I don't think any one of us is going to be totally satisfied with all the outcomes of these polls.
          With so many polls and so many members, the chances of me winning the jackpot in Lotto this week would be higher than that.

          ... But if I do win $20,000,000, you and Nick are at the top of the guest list to be invited to Australia for the party! (Air fares and accommodation covered, of course!)
          Cheers . I'm there already .
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Hanov View Post
            The M1 has at least seen extensive action, but AFAIK just vs. older Tanks manned by badly trained crews from countries/armies that have no history of modern warfare.
            While some might call the Iran Iraq War a WWI replay, the Iranians did have 'Modern' Tanks in a '80s sense. Chieftains, after all. Now will admit they had problems keeping those running. But you could say the UK ran into that same problem

            Iraqis were doing a lot better on the ground war at the end, defending against attacks, and doing combined arms attacks.

            The Iraqis expected something like the Iranians again in a ground attack, but somewhat larger

            They didn't know what hit them.

            Can't blame everything, as much as the defenders of Soviet style gear would like, on 'Monkey Models' or Chinese knockoffs

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Marathag View Post
              Can't blame everything, as much as the defenders of Soviet style gear would like, on 'Monkey Models' or Chinese knockoffs
              Especially when it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. The Iraqis got the turds. The Russians kept the polished turds for themselves.
              ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

              BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

              BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

              Comment


              • #37
                Centurion for me...!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Hey Nick, if the Centurion wins, I win!

                  Here's why...

                  I voted for what was the best tank by the rules of the game. Problem is, the Centurion also scores VERY high by the same criteria.

                  If Centurion wins, I get a second chance to vote for my favorite tank!
                  ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                  BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                  BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    It came down to what I would actually want to be in during a battle. So I picked the Centurion. Nothing against the Sherman, it was a hard decision, but I had to pick one or the other.
                    The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      Nationalism rather than intelligence is the reason why one was chosen over the other.
                      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      I do get annoyed when voting is based on nationalist pride rather than poll criteria, just as was blatantly obvious in the Best Tank Destroyer thread.
                      Well this is a bit insulting. As an American who voted for the M4, how about I ask why you as a Briton voted against a tank that fought on every front of World War II, with virtually all the Allies, becoming the most numerous tank in both the American and British armies; served throughout the Korean War; and was upgraded by third parties to such an extent that it was able to successfully engage T-54s in the Middle East, etc. Instead you voted for a British heavy cruiser that it was attempted to immediately replace--thrice--until a suitable main battle tank was finally built in 1966, the year before the British heavy tank was retired. If the Centurion being the first universal tank is your main argument here, I'm unconvinced after looking at the timeline and history of the Centurion, its replacements, and the Conqueror. Fletcher: "But was the Centurion, after all, the Universal Tank? The answer has to be a qualified negative. That title was given to the contemporary A45 at one point, but the A45 never got beyond the development stage, although it contributed to the design of the heavy gun tank Conqueror. And when Conqueror bowed out in 1966 [Griffin asserts the Conqueror's withdrawal "was all over by the middle of 1967."], the FV4201 Chieftain was just entering service. As the first Main Battle Tank, Chieftain was probably better qualified for the title..." Fletcher muses that to claim the Centurion was the first universal tank, one must regard Conqueror as an "aberration." The Soviets, US, and UK all fielded heavy tanks in the late 50s-late 60s, however, so to me such a consideration would be folly.

                      Neither tank was a paradigm shift. The M4 was a medium tank while the Centurion was the final cruiser that served alongside a heavy tank until Centurion's replacement had entered production. Upgradeability is similar between the two tanks. However, numbers produced and intensity and span of combat surely favor the M4. If that's me ignoring the obvious in favor of nationalistic pride, despite numerous votes against American tanks in previous rounds of this poll, then so be it.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Tough one.

                        Voted Sherman.

                        American WW2 tactics were based on this fast moving tank.
                        It showed flexibility by adapting to a new main gun (from 75 mm to 17 pdr to 105 mm) to meet the need of the time.

                        I love the Centurion, but the Sherman is the most significant one.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                          Well this is a bit insulting.
                          Well, it at least shows you were listening (ie reading) .
                          As an American who voted for the M4, how about I ask why you as a Briton voted against a tank that fought on every front of World War II, with virtually all the Allies, becoming the most numerous tank in both the American and British armies; served throughout the Korean War; and was upgraded by third parties to such an extent that it was able to successfully engage T-54s in the Middle East, etc. Instead you voted for a British heavy cruiser that it was attempted to immediately replace--thrice--until a suitable main battle tank was finally built in 1966, the year before the British heavy tank was retired. If the Centurion being the first universal tank is your main argument here, I'm unconvinced after looking at the timeline and history of the Centurion, its replacements, and the Conqueror. Fletcher: "But was the Centurion, after all, the Universal Tank? The answer has to be a qualified negative. That title was given to the contemporary A45 at one point, but the A45 never got beyond the development stage, although it contributed to the design of the heavy gun tank Conqueror. And when Conqueror bowed out in 1966 [Griffin asserts the Conqueror's withdrawal "was all over by the middle of 1967."], the FV4201 Chieftain was just entering service. As the first Main Battle Tank, Chieftain was probably better qualified for the title..." Fletcher muses that to claim the Centurion was the first universal tank, one must regard Conqueror as an "aberration." The Soviets, US, and UK all fielded heavy tanks in the late 50s-late 60s, however, so to me such a consideration would be folly.

                          Neither tank was a paradigm shift. The M4 was a medium tank while the Centurion was the final cruiser that served alongside a heavy tank until Centurion's replacement had entered production. Upgradeability is similar between the two tanks. However, numbers produced and intensity and span of combat surely favor the M4. If that's me ignoring the obvious in favor of nationalistic pride, despite numerous votes against American tanks in previous rounds of this poll, then so be it.
                          The M4 represents the might of the US war machine, not a particular significance or influence over any other tank of the time. It was fielded everywhere, because it was the only medium tank the US made in numbers. It was a fantastic tank when it entered service, and was almost certainly less effective than British tanks post D-Day in terms of actual tank capability. British crews in 42 who were delighted to be issued with Shermans in 42, were just as they delighted not to swap their Cromwells with Shermans late 44, because US losses had been heavier than expected. Overall, it was even less reliable than Shermans in the field in British NWE (ETO) units 44-5.

                          Calling the Centurion a heavy cruiser, belies the fact it was intended as an design to fulfill both the main roles of a tank, ie at the battlefield tactical, and campaign operational level.

                          Mentioning the Conqueror is a red herring, and needs not to be mentioned. Few were built, and were a response to the Soviet heavy tank designs, nothing more.

                          Mr Fletcher also states in The Universal Tank that:
                          If one regards the Conqueror as an aberration, then it does seem reasonable to claim that Centurion embodied all the wartime ideals of what the universal tank should be, and in that sense alone it justifies the claim.
                          And to quote the Centurions influence on the US, General John O'Daniel, commanding the US 1st Corps in Korea, stated:
                          In their Centurions, the 8th Hussars have evolved a new type of tank warfare. They taught us that anywhere a tank can go is tank country, even the tops of mountains.
                          Finally, the basic design of the Centurion is so superior, that it remains, in a highly modified form, a true MBT today, and not just used because it is available. Its significance and influence lies in its longevity and ability to perform capable front line service over 60 years, which is more than half the time the tank has actually been around .
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                            Well, it at least shows you were listening (ie reading) .


                            The M4 represents the might of the US war machine, not a particular significance or influence over any other tank of the time. It was fielded everywhere, because it was the only medium tank the US made in numbers. It was a fantastic tank when it entered service, and was almost certainly less effective than British tanks post D-Day in terms of actual tank capability. British crews in 42 who were delighted to be issued with Shermans in 42, were just as they delighted not to swap their Cromwells with Shermans late 44, because US losses had been heavier than expected. Overall, it was even less reliable than Shermans in the field in British NWE (ETO) units 44-5.

                            Calling the Centurion a heavy cruiser, belies the fact it was intended as an design to fulfill both the main roles of a tank, ie at the battlefield tactical, and campaign operational level.

                            Mentioning the Conqueror is a red herring, and needs not to be mentioned. Few were built, and were a response to the Soviet heavy tank designs, nothing more.

                            Mr Fletcher also states in The Universal Tank that:

                            And to quote the Centurions influence on the US, General John O'Daniel, commanding the US 1st Corps in Korea, stated:

                            Finally, the basic design of the Centurion is so superior, that it remains, in a highly modified form, a true MBT today, and not just used because it is available. Its significance and influence lies in its longevity and ability to perform capable front line service over 60 years, which is more than half the time the tank has actually been around .
                            Prety much somes it up for me why I voted for the centurion. A proto MBT that got modfied in to a MBT.


                            Though if the M4 wins it desserved it. Both tanks should deserv to get through.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                              Prety much somes it up for me why I voted for the centurion. A proto MBT that got modfied in to a MBT.


                              Though if the M4 wins it desserved it. Both tanks should deserv to get through.

                              My top 4, ie those that I personally deem suitable for the semifinal, would be:
                              MkI-V
                              FT-17
                              T-34
                              Centurion

                              and with a MkI-V vs FT-17 final.
                              I would prefer the M1 to the M4 in the final 4 as well.

                              The M4 significance is that the US decided to continue to build a design that was starting to become obsolete as the war ended, and its real influence is that the US warmachine proved it could outbuild its opponents, with a good enough tank for the task at hand.

                              That doctrine was suddenly dropped by the West after WW2, with only the very best kit being used where possible. The Sherman's duff reputation, rightly or wrongly, among the average soldiers, the politicians and public caused a shift away from usuable kit to decent kit. This is why the US use the M1 for frontline service, and not the very workman like M60, which could still give a first class account of itself against the vast majority of opponents out there.

                              Quality has a quality of its own (see what I did there ).
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Finally voted - for the Centurion.
                                Nick and other posters convinced me. The significance of the M4 due to its omnipresence and insane numbers is overwhelming, but that is the industrial power of the USA.
                                One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X