Com-Central.net

SHAWN · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 484

okay, it was suggested so dare it be asked what are the DG's top ten tanks?
but first what is the criteria for the judging...
armor
armament
reliability
????

Doug_Kibbey

Suggest:

Longevity (including evolution based on a type, like "Pattons", etc.)
Versatility (was the basic platform useful for other applications?)
Adoption by other countries or services (other than at gunpoint, meaning buyers or users with a freedom to choose on the open market)
Combat record against tanks of similar evolutionary quality (did it meet it's theoretical equal on the battlefield and how did it do?)

bsmart

Those sound like good criteria. I was thinking onf

Innovation Did the vehicle introduce a concept or feature that was adopted by other vehicles

scale 1-10 in each category?

MarkHolloway

We could take a survey of what tank we would like to go to combat in.

Doug_Kibbey

- MarkHolloway

We could take a survey of what tank we would like to go to combat in.

Nice, but always reflects the "latest and greatest" technology with no account of historical contexts.

piney

Boy is this thread gonna get bloody Laughing

My vote is the M4 Sherman for the following reasons
used by
Argentina,Australia,Austria,Belgium,Brazil,Canada,Chile,China,Columbia,Cuba,Denmark,Ecuador,
Egypt,France,Germany,Great Britain,Greece,Guatemala,India,Iran/Iraq,Ireland,Israel,Italy,Japan
Jordan,Lebanon,Mexico,Netherlands,New Zealand,Nicaragua,Norway,Pakistan,Paraguay,Peru,Poland
Portugal,Spain,South Africa,South Korea,Soviet Union,Sweden,Syria,Turkey,Uganda,United States of America
Yugoslavia

A total of 49,324 Sherman tanks were produced in 11 plants between 1942 and 1946.
1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 total

M4 - - 8017 21231 3504 651 33403
M4 (76) - - - - 7135 3748 10883
M4 (105) - - - - 2286 2394 4680
M10 GMC - - 639 6067 - - 6706
M36 GMC - - - - 1400 924 2324
M7 HMC - - 2028 786 1164

in US service

20 different M-4 subtypes
another 20 varieties based on Sherman Chassis
DD, assault bridges model, Mine exploders, Rocket launchers, CDL's, Dozers,Flamethrowers
9 British variants
Chilean variant
Argentinian Variant
Egyptian Variant

11 Israeli variants

In service from 1942 until at least 1998 When Mexico upgraded its Sherman-chassis M32 Chenca TRV at least 56 years

greater mechanical reliability than almost any other tank, and while it was out matched by the ten ton heavier Panther, It could hold it's own against the Panzer IV and German tankers admired it's superior cross country performance compared to their own tanks

I'm gonna go put on my flak vest and get in my hole now, Let the games begin

Jeff"Piney" Lewis

bsmart

Wait a minute Piney this needs to be an organized brawl. Let's establish the ground rules first.

My suggestion

Participants will submit a list of 10 tanks each with scores of 0-10 in the following areas

Longevity (including evolution based on a type, like "Pattons", etc.)
Versatility (was the basic platform useful for other applications?)
Adoption by other countries or services (other than at gunpoint, meaning buyers or users with a freedom to choose on the open market)
Combat Record against tanks of similar evolutionary quality (did it meet it's theoretical equal on the battlefield and how did it do?)
Innovation Did the vehicle introduce a concept or feature that was adopted by other vehicles

That way each vehicle will have a score of 0-50

We will then compile a list of all submitted tanks and the top 15 will be listed on a ballot for everyone to consider. We will then submit our ratings on those 15 using the same criteria and scoring system and the top 10 will be considered the 'winners'

Does that sound like a fair way to do it?

I was actually wondering if we should include the 'fear factor' that the show used (or should we use their criteria as a whole?) I think 'fear Factor can play a part. I think the Tiger is a prime example of a tank that gained a reputation like that. Then I considered that the 'fear factor' should show up in the Combat Record anyway.

MarkHolloway

Good point, Doug. Neutral

LeeW · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 26, 2006 Posts: 61

How about a tank that may be very good but is manufactred by a country that doesn't or won't sell to others? Didn't the Checks and the Poles have some good pre war tanks? France, Brazil, and of course Israel have had some pretty impressive designs over the last 30 years or so. I guess my question is how much does Adoption point to marketing vs tank quality?

For combat record you also have training, support, and tactical effects that may out weigh tank quatlity.

Perahps we need two scales one addresses secondary measures such as the above and the other measures technical measures such as:
firepower, armor, ergonomics, communications, etc.
Of course a problem with that is you need a sliding scale or you'll end up with only modern tanks on the list.

oldertop · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Oct 20, 2006 Posts: 76

Some kind of tempering is needed, if some one is giving away free tanks and you don't have the ability to produce your own or if you happen to be the new guy in this world of nation and the only tanks on the market are some well worn M4s you'er going to end up with M4s. The US miltary was handing out M4 like so much candy in the post war world to our "friends"
When a placment in this contest is being consider the time factor must be set, after all you wouldn't place a M4s performance on a par with the M1.

bsmart

- LeeW

How about a tank that may be very good but is manufactred by a country that doesn't or won't sell to others? Didn't the Checks and the Poles have some good pre war tanks? France, Brazil, and of course Israel have had some pretty impressive designs over the last 30 years or so. I guess my question is how much does Adoption point to marketing vs tank quality?

Neither France or Brazil have shown a reluctance to market their products around the world. The Czechs made very good prewar tanks, some were sold to other countries and the germans kept the production lines open and incorporated Skoda tanks on a large scale

For combat record you also have training, support, and tactical effects that may out weigh tank quatlity.

True but results count. And to some degree the tank can be judged on how well it fits into the structure and capabilities of it's users. If the tank is to complex to be used by the troops or too fragile to withstand normal use/abuse it doesn't matter how good it looks on paper.

Perahps we need two scales one addresses secondary measures such as the above and the other measures technical measures such as:
firepower, armor, ergonomics, communications, etc.
Of course a problem with that is you need a sliding scale or you'll end up with only modern tanks on the list.

I think it would get to complex for the type of discussion we were talking about. We could even get into quality of armor and 'shatter gap' if we slide too far down that slope

LeeW · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 26, 2006 Posts: 61

Perhaps we should decide why we want a 10 best list. The purpose of the list my indicate what defintion of "best" we should use.

LeeW · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 26, 2006 Posts: 61

- bsmart

...
Neither France or Brazil have shown a reluctance to market their products around the world. ...

But they for various reasons haven't sold a whole lot of tanks. Is that a marketing failure or a problem with the vehicle. I probably should have said Japan and Korea instead of France and Brazil. Just remembered both had some interesting designs in the not to distant past.

LeeW · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 26, 2006 Posts: 61

A classic example to consider may be the S tank. How good was it? How will it score with these criteria? Was it even a tank?

Doug_Kibbey

- LeeW

A classic example to consider may be the S tank. How good was it? How will it score with these criteria? Was it even a tank?

How many users did it have?
How many were produced?
How long was it in service?
How many variants were there?
How did it fair in combat against opponents of similar evolution?
Did it really have any offensive capability to speak of as we understand main battle tanks to usually possess?

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big