Edited by AllStarZ, 17 July 2006 - 22:12.
What is the most important attribute of a tank?
#1
Posted 17 July 2006 - 22:11
#2
Posted 17 July 2006 - 23:46
Regards,
Major Nuker
#3
Posted 18 July 2006 - 01:34
In which case I would say the armor is most important.
#4
Posted 18 July 2006 - 01:38
#5
Posted 18 July 2006 - 01:53
#6
Posted 18 July 2006 - 01:55
#7
Posted 18 July 2006 - 02:13
#8
Posted 18 July 2006 - 02:14
#9
Posted 18 July 2006 - 02:43
Edited by Moosy Crisp!, 18 July 2006 - 03:09.
#10
Posted 18 July 2006 - 02:53
#11
Posted 18 July 2006 - 03:09
#12
Posted 18 July 2006 - 03:14
#13
Posted 18 July 2006 - 03:17
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
#14
Posted 18 July 2006 - 03:20
#15
Posted 18 July 2006 - 03:33
#16
Posted 18 July 2006 - 03:37
Let us consider various situations.
Lets say we have a tank, which has great mobility, but crappy armour and firepower. The result? The tank will crumble when it encounters resistance in the form of any anti-armour weapon. This is what happened to the A-10 Cruiser Tank. Really fast tank, but couldn't take on its panzer opponents on an equal level. Lets say we mount a really powerful gun and keep the speed high. The result? You'd have something like the Hellcat Tank Destroyer. Capable of taking out several tanks in one run because it could move from one spot to the next so fast, and had a reasonably powerful gun to fight with. However, if you were to engage in prolonged fighting, or wound up in anything but an open field situation or an ambush situation, you would be likely easily killed by anything, like the above. Anyways, no matter how fast you move, you cannot dodge a tank shell.
Lets say we put really heavy armour on the tank? What will happen then? Well the Matilda tank clearly showed the error of this. The Matilda had extremely thick frontal armour that made it "Queen of the Desert" for awhile. However, it had a tiny 2-pounder gun, which couldn't penetrate standard tank armour at a distance. So it had to keep moving closer to engage the enemy, and as it moved closer, it gets into the field of fire where the tank guns are effective against the armour. The gun could not be upgraded because the turret ring was made too small so that the tank could be transported on narrow-gauge British railways. Eventually, the Germans started using their 88s against armour and brought the 75mm PAK into the field, which could eliminate it way before it could even fire its tiny, non-high explosive shell. Putting a better engine on it to make it move faster wouldn't help much either, since the the gun is still far too weak.
Lets say then, we put really heavy armour and really good firepower. Then you'd have something like the Tiger Tank. Extremely good tank killer, but a terrible tank nonetheless. It moves too slowly for Blitzkrieg or Deep Operations, and you'd never have one when you need it.
The tank also has to not be too heavy. If it is too heavy, it will require good roads, since it will sink in mud, consume more fuel, and require more maintenance as components break down under the stress.
Panther and T-34 tanks were a good example of this, Panzerkampfwagen Mk. IVs to a certain extent, and Sherman tanks during the North African campaign and against the Japanese were too.
Edited by AllStarZ, 18 July 2006 - 03:38.
#17
Posted 18 July 2006 - 04:02
#18
Posted 18 July 2006 - 04:38
#19
Posted 18 July 2006 - 04:43
Your question was simply misleading.
#20
Posted 18 July 2006 - 04:47
#21
Posted 18 July 2006 - 05:11
So ha
#22
Posted 18 July 2006 - 12:12
#23
Posted 18 July 2006 - 18:11
#24
Posted 18 July 2006 - 18:13
Edited by Davey Jones, 18 July 2006 - 18:13.
Was davey jones, shas'O kais
#25
Posted 18 July 2006 - 22:02
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users