StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.battletanks.com/m4a3_sherman.htm
VS

http://www.battlefield.ru/is3.html

Here is the battlefield.

Clear plain of flat ground, no trees and 1000 meter visibility.
Both Crews are Experienced and well trained, full ammo load.

In your opinion, who would win?

Fucking stupid matchup. The JS-3 has every advantage by a huge margin, at that range its shell would probably pass through the Sherman and out the back.

What Sea Skimmer said, but more....

The Sherman was a pretty crappy tank, try changing it to a Hellcat or something and it would be a little more even...

JediNeophyte wrote:The Sherman was a pretty crappy tank, try changing it to a Hellcat or something and it would be a little more even...

Umm, no that would be worse as the Hellcat has the same firepower. But, with far less armor. In an open field its high speed will not be very helpful. The Hellcat and all US tank destroyers where meant as mobile anti tank guns to fight massed armored assaults in depth.

IS-3 would take it. The Sherman was designed to be easy to produce, in order to have large numbers and swarm an enemy. You've pitted a medium tank in the M4 against a heavy tank in the IS-3. On an open battlefield, the heavy will win in virtually every situation. A more "proper" match would be an M4 against a T-34 for weight, or an M4 against a KV-1 for utility. An IS-3 would have to be up against something like an M48 or so for it to be an equivalent fight.

This is beyond a joke. The Sherman gets ass-raped.

So if the JS-3 was replaced with a T-34, who would win?

Probably the M4, though it becomes a bit more evenly matched if you supply the Sherman with HVAP ammunition (historically in short supply)

IS-3 v Sherman = 1 dead Ronson

T34 v Sherman ~ depends which mod of the T-34; if it's the T-34/76 the Sherman has a pretty good chance of coming out on top; if it's a T-34/85, probably another brewed Shermy

How about replacing the T-34 with a Tig--

(Everyone hurls bricks at CommandoJoe.)

It would be considerably more fair if you had an IS-3 vs. an IS-3's production cost worth of M-4s.

Most. Uneven. Matchup. EVER.

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Ok, replace the T-34 with a Tiger, and I'll replace the Sherman with an M1A2 Abrahms.

Anyway, playing Superpower I've noticed that Argentina has a tank called the TAM, and the game's stats show it to be sort of halfway decent. What is it, and is it any good?

(Don't ask how, but I've gotten into this weird kick for South American militaries. Maybe it's just that it's something you never hear discussed. For example, I never knew about the friendliness-turned-hostility between Brazil and Nazi Germany.)

Argentina basically had Nazi's in charge from 1930 through about 1944.

The TAM was designed by Germany and is basically a 105mm gun and turret dropped onto a Marder chassis. It's okay for fighting the armored cars and equally light tanks fielded by its opponents. But the armor is thin, the gun is low pressure IIRC, and for night vision it only has a low light TV camera. Any remotely modern tank would slaughter it.

Vympel wrote:Most. Uneven. Matchup. EVER.

We've had worse, I direct you to the original and follow-up tank/mecha threads among others.

Ok, because i wanted to have a mental pic of what a tank battle in korea would look like.

Ok, a T-34/85 vs the latest mark of sherman. (i think it's A3?)

Necro99 wrote:Ok, because i wanted to have a mental pic of what a tank battle in korea would look like.

Ok, a T-34/85 vs the latest mark of sherman. (i think it's A3?)

T-34/85 still has a better chance of winning. It has thicker armor, and a lower profile. Not nearly as clear cut though. Depends also on terrain and crew.

At distance I'd say that the M4A3 would kill the T-34/85 because of better optics, the M4 should get the first few hits which may kill the T-34. In closer terrain the M4's higher silloette and thinner armour would give the lower T-34 and more heavily armoured the advantage.

Incidentally I'd take a late Sherman over the T-34 because although it is still a bigger target the 76mm is a good match for the 85mm and the Sherman has better optics and the T-34's armour advantage will have been significantly reduced.

T-34-85 kicks a war-time Sherman. It's obvious. T-34-85 is the best medium tank of WWII. If yo like to compare post-war tanks, try to compare post-war Sherman with T-72.

Soulman wrote:At distance I'd say that the M4A3 would kill the T-34/85 because of better optics,

There's no appreciable difference between American and Russian optics that I've ever heard of. It was the Germans who had ... 'the shit'.

Incidentally I'd take a late Sherman over the T-34 because although it is still a bigger target the 76mm is a good match for the 85mm and the Sherman has better optics and the T-34's armour advantage will have been significantly reduced.

The 76mm HE power wasn't as good, so it was only a good match in terms of AP. I also deny the optics claim completely.

Vympel
Agree Germans had the best optics. American optics and fire-control are presumably in no way superior to Russian (presumably, because I've never driven any American tank). And no one ever noticed the vulnerability of Sherman tanks, which blew up like hellwagons. Or the awful height of the Sherman? (for a medium tank it's profile is not kinda very good).
BTW, are you Russian?

Stas Bush wrote:Vympel
Agree Germans had the best optics. American optics and fire-control are presumably in no way superior to Russian (presumably, because I've never driven any American tank). And no one ever noticed the vulnerability of Sherman tanks, which blew up like hellwagons. Or the awful height of the Sherman? (for a medium tank it's profile is not kinda very good).
BTW, are you Russian?

Nope- Greek-Australian. Russian military just facinates me however.

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Anyway, playing Superpower I've noticed that Argentina has a tank called the TAM, and the game's stats show it to be sort of halfway decent. What is it, and is it any good?

TAM was ordered by Argentina from Thyssen Henschel of West Germany. Production began in Buenos Aires near the end of the 1970s, and it is based off the hull of the MICV. The armor is poor but well-sloped, providing slightly better protection than its (classified) thickness would suggest. It has a crew of four, weighs 30,500 kilograms, 8.23 meters long with gun forward, 3.12 meters wide, 2.42 meters high. Range 900 kilometers. Carries one 105mm gun and a pair of 7.62mm machineguns. Uses a turbocharged V-6 developing 537kW (730hp), and has a top road speed of 75kph. Decent light tank, but definitely a second-line unit.

Necro99 wrote:Ok, because i wanted to have a mental pic of what a tank battle in korea would look like.

Ok, a T-34/85 vs the latest mark of sherman. (i think it's A3?)

Then why the fuck did you chose the JS-3? None fought in Korea, the North only had T-34/85's and only 150 of those. The Chinese didn't bring any tanks. American Pershings and M4s along with 3.5 inch rocket launchers destroyed most of the northern tank fleet.

Stas Bush wrote:T-34-85 kicks a war-time Sherman. It's obvious. T-34-85 is the best medium tank of WWII. If yo like to compare post-war tanks, try to compare post-war Sherman with T-72.

If yo like to compare post-war tanks, try to compare post-war T-34 with M-1A2.