It's a good thing American and Russia didn't ever get it on.

[LuckyDog]

On 1/7/2023 at 8:58 AM, IICptMillerII said:

Not sure where the “height=bad” myth

I thought this made a higher tank easier to hit, as you have more latitude for inaccurate rangefinding/estimation. However, as you pointed out, you should be hull down; in that situation, there is little difference in the turret heights.

[lcm1947]

I would love to see actual verified stats on this subject.  I personally not being anywhere close to an authority on any military matter but just using common sense directs me 

into placing armor number one, two being weapon efficacy system and lastly speed.  

[LuckyDog]

8 hours ago, lcm1947 said:

placing armor number one, two being weapon efficacy system and lastly speed

Where tank design sits on the triangle of armour/speed/gun is allegedly dictated by national experience, but the terrain you deploy your tank is a critical factor in efficacy or the suitability of the design. Take the Panther vs. Sherman Firefly balance - I bet the Panther can KO a Firefly from further out; this is negated if the terrain is close. I've read that the Germans preferred the Panzer IV over the Panther in the boucage as the gun was shorter (maneuverability) and the penetration at closer range was sufficent.  However, as @chuckdyke pointed out - being hit and not penetrated could still put the tank out of action. Lots of nuances! My preference would be for superior optics and gunnery for a first-round hit.

[domfluff]

As with many engineering questions, there's no best solution, otherwise everything would be that solution.

I do think it's interesting to consider what armour is actually for. Especially in any kind of modern period, any tank can and will die to a single hit from a suitable anti-tank weapon... so why armour?

Well, the US company team in CMCW is a good example of what armour is useful for. The variant of that in the NTC campaign is: 1x M60A1 platoon, 2x M113 platoons, 2x M150 TOW vehicles and supporting mortars and HQ elements. The M150s are your most important killing power. These have the accuracy, the range and the bunch to take on the heaviest Soviet armour.

So why have tanks? Well, aside from basic concerns like rate of fire, the main reason is that the tanks are mobile, armoured, and have enough of a punch to compete. Ultimately, someone sometimes has to roll the dice - something has to go over the hill first, or rush into contact. Sometimes that can be done with dismounts, but often the pace and size of a battle are too much for dismounted infantry to cope with. You certainly don't want to lead with your TOW vehicles - they'll die to a stiff breeze, and you desperately need them to stay alive.

So tanks give you mobile firepower, and the armour allows you a little more leeway in your actions. If someone has to go first, then it should be the element that stands a chance of not immediately being blown up. This means that for the US, the M60 needs to be heavily protected, it needs to be fairly mobile, and it needs to have some degree of firepower - in the case of the M60, the armour might be the most important concern.

This is in contrast to the BAOR Chieftain, which was central to the British defensive doctrine, which was a lot more static and in depth than the US doctrine of the 1970s. Because of this, firepower was the most important of the triangle for the BAOR. The West Germans instead created depth through counter-attack, and so mobility was their primary concern. The side that can move faster (operationally or tactically) can dictate the shape of the engagement, taking or denying key terrain and being proactive about where and when to fight.

So... no, insofar as the firepower/mobility/protection triangle is useful, I don't think you can rank protection as the most important in all cases. There are going to be situations where this is appropriate, but equipment and doctrine go hand in hand, and one of the really fascinating things about the Cold War was how many different ways there were to achieve the same goal.

[lcm1947]

On 1/12/2023 at 11:41 AM, domfluff said:

As with many engineering questions, there's no best solution, otherwise everything would be that solution.

I do think it's interesting to consider what armour is actually for. Especially in any kind of modern period, any tank can and will die to a single hit from a suitable anti-tank weapon... so why armour?

Well, the US company team in CMCW is a good example of what armour is useful for. The variant of that in the NTC campaign is: 1x M60A1 platoon, 2x M113 platoons, 2x M150 TOW vehicles and supporting mortars and HQ elements. The M150s are your most important killing power. These have the accuracy, the range and the bunch to take on the heaviest Soviet armour.

So why have tanks? Well, aside from basic concerns like rate of fire, the main reason is that the tanks are mobile, armoured, and have enough of a punch to compete. Ultimately, someone sometimes has to roll the dice - something has to go over the hill first, or rush into contact. Sometimes that can be done with dismounts, but often the pace and size of a battle are too much for dismounted infantry to cope with. You certainly don't want to lead with your TOW vehicles - they'll die to a stiff breeze, and you desperately need them to stay alive.

So tanks give you mobile firepower, and the armour allows you a little more leeway in your actions. If someone has to go first, then it should be the element that stands a chance of not immediately being blown up. This means that for the US, the M60 needs to be heavily protected, it needs to be fairly mobile, and it needs to have some degree of firepower - in the case of the M60, the armour might be the most important concern.

This is in contrast to the BAOR Chieftain, which was central to the British defensive doctrine, which was a lot more static and in depth than the US doctrine of the 1970s. Because of this, firepower was the most important of the triangle for the BAOR. The West Germans instead created depth through counter-attack, and so mobility was their primary concern. The side that can move faster (operationally or tactically) can dictate the shape of the engagement, taking or denying key terrain and being proactive about where and when to fight.

So... no, insofar as the firepower/mobility/protection triangle is useful, I don't think you can rank protection as the most important in all cases. There are going to be situations where this is appropriate, but equipment and doctrine go hand in hand, and one of the really fascinating things about the Cold War was how many different ways there were to achieve the same goal.

 

[lcm1947]

Thanks for all the views and facts in regard to my beginning post I now do realize that I started a never-ending discussion as I now see from all the informative and useful comments that there is no one correct answer.  It was an interesting topic to me however so again thanks to all that contributed.