The Soviet IS tank family is superior to the US M4 tank family
Debate Rounds (4)
The Sherman is faster than the IS-1 and more mobile. The Sherman weighs over 15 tons less than the IS-1, making it faster and more maneuverable. In a tank battle, formations and being able to adapt to the enemy are important. If a tank is faster and more maneuverable then it can adapt faster, and work better in formations with other tanks.
Next, the Sherman has superior range and firepower. The "17 pounder" gun has a muzzle velocity of 3950 ft/s, the 85 mm soviet gun is 2598 ft/s, this gives the Sherman superior force, which leads to better penetration and range.
Finally, the Sherman is known as "the workhorse of the Allied army" this is because it can be used to pull many useful war objects. These are including but not limited to, bridges and artillery. Also, shermans were also developed to carry bridges that can cross trenches.
Due to the Sherman's superior firepower, maneuverability, and versatility, I believe that the Sherman M4 Firefly is superior to the IS-1, which were both developed at the same time.
The Firefly was the Western Ally Medium tank of 1944. The IS-1 was developed in 1943 (therefore it is unfair), but I will, however, debate that the Russian Medium tank of 1944 (the T-44) was stronger than the Firefly.
If you wish to accept this debate, simply say "accept".
Now, let's examine armor. The armor of the M24 is extremely thin (36 mm at thickest) and can be penetrated by virtually any tank gun at the time. The T-44, on the other hand, has 120 mm of armor. Yes, the M24 is supposed to be a light tank, meaning is substitutes speed for armor, but the T-44 achieves almost the same speed with three times as much armor.
The M24 requires a 5 man crew while the T-44 requires 4. This, in itself, is already a small advantage. Realistically, I think that almost anything that the M24 can do, the T-44 can do better.
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the Chafee is still used today, 70 years later. The T-44, was discontinued due to widespread mechanical failures, particularly with its teething. This means that the tanks longer range is negated by the fact that it may not work that long. Also, range isn't a huge issue because as long as it is refueled, the range doesn't matter.
Finally, the M24 chaffee tank can turn faster, since it is twice as light, making it cheaper and easier to make more. With the expense of materials needed to build a T-44, two M24s could be built, furnish the M24 with manpower and firepower and I would say two, smoke grenade launching, faster and more maneuverable M24s will beat one T-44.
Pros points have been successfully ben refuted while I have shown many reasons why the M24 is better. Vote Con in this debate, there is no reason not to.
I would like to argue the exact opposite. Having 5 people instead of 4 means it is more difficult to communicate in battle (because there are more people) and harder for the commander to give out orders, once again, because there are more people to control.
"The T-44, was discontinued due to widespread mechanical failures, particularly with its teething."
My opponent has provided no sources to support this claim. In fact, the T-44 was discontinued simply because better, more modernized version came out. (T-44A, T-44-100 etc.)
"Also, range isn't a huge issue because as long as it is refueled, the range doesn't matter."
Well, of course it doesn't matter as long as there is fuel. That's why range is valued, because there are many situations in war when there IS NOT fuel available but the tank must keep functioning.
"With the expense of materials needed to build a T-44, two M24s could be built, furnish the M24 with manpower and firepower and I would say two, smoke grenade launching, faster and more maneuverable M24s will beat one T-44."
I agree with everything but the last part. Although it is cheaper, it is lower quality. It would be impossible for the M24s to win, simply because their gun (76 mm of penetration) would not be able to punch through the T-44's 120 mm thick armor. The T-44's gun, on the other hand, would tear through the paper armor of the M24s.
Because of the fact that the M24 simply cannot penetrate the armor of the T-44, there is nothing that the M24 would be able to realistically do to damage the T-44. The M24 could resort to ramming, but the T-44 is much heavier and it would hurt the M24 much more than the T-44.
In direct combat between a T-44 and an M24, the M24 would not stand a chance simply because of the poor penetration of the gun. The M24 could shoot all day long at the T-44 and would only be able to do damage if he got very, very lucky by hitting tiny weak spots, which is un-realistic. In the time that the M24 would be unloading, a single shot from the gun of the T-44 would take out the M24. By class, the T-44 is better as well. Not only can it function as a great medium tank, but it can also perform the function of light tank almost as well as the Chaffee.
As a result of the arguments presented above (especially the last point about armor and guns), I believe that the T-44 is superior to the M24 in almost every aspect and is in-comparable with the M24 in direct combat simply because it would not even be a competition. It would be target practice for the T-44 gunner.
Thank you for the debate.
Next I would like to point out that this debate is over which is better, not who would win in a straight up fight (check the comments section, my opponent agreed to this to). And the Chafee is equipped for a very specialized role, reconnaissance. Knowing where the enemy is can win the battle, destroying one, maybe two, other tanks does not. Also, my opponent said that T-44s have more range and still work well as light tanks. First, the T-44 is twice as heavy as the chaffee, if the US wanted it to be armored it would be. But it is not, because it is a LIGHT tank and is not meant for fighting, it is meant for skirmishing and recon. Next, the T-44s range wouldn't matter if it is broken on the side of the road because of said mechanical issues. The t-44 also isn't good at recon if it is broken on the side of the road either.
The Chaffee is a very successful tank in its role. I would like to point out again that if the US wanted the Chaffee to be armored it would be, but it is a light tank. The Chaffee doent have mechanical issues, unlike the T-44's that Military factory led to it having an "underwhelming existence". A broken tank is just a heap of metal. So what will you vote for, the heap of metal, or a highly successful tank in its role? Good debate pro, and may the best debater win.
http://www.militaryfactory.com... (The M24 one)
http://www.militaryfactory.com... (The t-44 one)
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.