The Instigator
TheRussian
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
NinjaDebaterBoss
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Soviet IS tank family is superior to the US M4 tank family

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 822 times Debate No: 51989
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

TheRussian

Pro

I will argue that the Soviet IS tank family is superior to the US M4 tank family. Please begin your argument.
NinjaDebaterBoss

Con

I will accept this debate, on the condition that to make it simpler, we compare two specific tanks built around the same time, during WW2. That means that the later M4 and the later IS tanks are irrelevant in this debate. These two tanks are the IS-1 and The Sherman M4 Firefly, commonly used in WW2. There are three main reasons I believe this, the superior mobility of the sherman, the versatility and the superior range and firepower.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRussian

Pro

That is not the subject of debate. If you wished to change the it, you should have proposed it in the comments.
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".
NinjaDebaterBoss

Con

Since we are moving to 1944 and changing class, how about we do a soviet t-44 (1944) vs an M24 light tank (1944) if you agree we can begin debating next round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheRussian

Pro

The T-44, being a medium tank has almost the same top-speed (32 mph) as the M24 (35 mph), which weighs over 20 metric tons less. The T-44 (186 mile range) also has almost twice as much range as the M24 (99 mile range). The T-44 has the D-5T (also present on the IS-1) which is far superior to the 75 mm gun on the M24. (The T-44 carries 58 rounds for its main gun while the M24 carries only 48 rounds).
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.
http://www.militaryfactory.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.militaryfactory.com...
NinjaDebaterBoss

Con

The First thing I have to say is that having a larger crew makes the M24 chaffee tank more tactical because it has more people, runs more efficiently, and 5 heads are better than 4. Next, though the T-44 has greater armor and main tank gun, the chaffee has a smoke mortar to help prevent it from being hit until it can use its superior mobility (greater than the T-44) to ambush it. This means that the M24 chaffee tank doesn't need

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.
Debate Round No. 3
TheRussian

Pro

"The First thing I have to say is that having a larger crew makes the M24 chaffee tank more tactical because it has more people, runs more efficiently, and 5 heads are better than 4."
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.
http://www.militaryfactory.com......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://www.militaryfactory.com......

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.
NinjaDebaterBoss

Con

Before I begin, I apologize for not listing my sources, according to militarfactory.com "her mechanical issues dogged the tank for the rest of its existence" and that "with her mechanical issues, the T-44's potential was never met, leading to an underwhelming existence. This again negates pros point about the tank's maneuverability, the tank is a sitting duck and "target practice" for the chaffee. Which with its smoke mortar, can approach the tank under the smokescreen to be able to score a close range hit on the t-44, which at such range, its armor will be useless.

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.

Sources
http://www.militaryfactory.com... (The M24 one)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.russati.su...

http://www.militaryfactory.com... (The t-44 one)
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by NinjaDebaterBoss 2 years ago
NinjaDebaterBoss
Yes, which one is better, not in a plain old fight. Thank you for compromising with me
Posted by Jevinigh 2 years ago
Jevinigh
Guess I was too slow.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
Hahaha, alright :) So, T-44 vs. M24 Chaffee? Just straight up?
Posted by NinjaDebaterBoss 2 years ago
NinjaDebaterBoss
Actually bring it on! We will obviously be comparing which one is better and I accept t44 vs m24
Posted by NinjaDebaterBoss 2 years ago
NinjaDebaterBoss
If you can find a soviet light tank from 1944 that would be great, if not we will proceed like this comparing which one is better, not which one will win in a straight up fight
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
Comparing the T-44 to the Chaffee is medium tank to light tank, are you sure you wanna do that?
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
It is difficult to compare two such large tank families, but hey, worth a try. Let's do it.
Posted by Jevinigh 2 years ago
Jevinigh
I will take the debate but the scope needs to be expanded to the IS family v. M4 Family, Comparing the IL-2 to the M4EA32 is a bit of pigeon hole and not really a winnable debate.
Posted by Jevinigh 2 years ago
Jevinigh
This has more rounds than it needs.
No votes have been placed for this debate.