Originally Posted by Doppleganger

You are comparing tanks from different generations. The IS-2 was a Soviet WW2 tank. It was the IS-3, later designated the T-10, that became the main Soviet heavy tank immediately post-war. Even then, the T-10 was the better tank design.

M103A1 Patton.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

M103A1 Patton.

AFAIK it's the M47 'Patton', which was a medium tank that was quickly replaced by the M48. The M103 was a heavy tank to the medium M47/48s but the M48 adopted the main battle tank role which was just coming into favour. Of course the Centurion Mk III was regarded by many as the first great mbt.

While I prefer the IS-3 over the IS-2 design, it was the IS-2 that was the USSR's best heavy in WW2. It is questionable whether the IS-3 was ever used in WW2, but it certainly was created for the war. It may or may not have been present in Manchuria right at the end. The IS-2 shows up early enough on the Eastern Front to make a serious impact. For the largest clash of tanks in history (WW2 Eastern Front), your star players were:
German Panzer IV (medium)
German Panther (medium)
Tiger I (heavy)
T-34 (medium)
IS-2 (heavy)

The IS-3, Tiger II, Sherman Firefly, Pershing (etc.) are all examples of tanks that did not see enough action in WW2 to truly influence the outcome of that war. They were also part of the Post-WW2 generation of tanks, so comparing them to those deployed through most of WW2 is unfair.

I can get a clip up on everyone of those tanks in the list of the first post, the STRV 122 (Leopard) is done, the other once needs prepping.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

AFAIK it's the M47 'Patton', which was a medium tank that was quickly replaced by the M48. The M103 was a heavy tank to the medium M47/48s but the M48 adopted the main battle tank role which was just coming into favour. Of course the Centurion Mk III was regarded by many as the first great mbt.

Actaully M46 - M60 are Patton's. The M103, is a variant of the M48.

Hey , I ask you all, If I out a stone into the barrell of the tank, can it still fire?

Originally Posted by zander_0633

Hey , I ask you all, If I out a stone into the barrell of the tank, can it still fire?

You really need to watch "Myth Busters". They plug a shotgun with alll types of items and then fire it. It's not a tank barrel, but its the same basic principle.

But yes I think if you wedged a stone into a tank barrel it could still fire.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

You really need to watch "Myth Busters". They plug a shotgun with alll types of items and then fire it. It's not a tank barrel, but its the same basic principle.

But yes I think if you wedged a stone into a tank barrel it could still fire.

Might or might not, but I sure as heck wouldn't be willing to try it.

I doubt it would stop the tank round but it might bust the seals if its lodged thight enough and have a unearthly stone that fits perfectly and that doesnt let the gases escape, but i doubt it would happen as there are things in a tank that passes the gass out of the gun with high presure air. So It would probebly have a chance of 10 billion to work on a modern tank, That is if you find the perfect stone.

Nah don't even think it would be that big of a chance heh

Well, so nothing will happen if a person stuff a cloth into the barrell? Then I think the person needs to open the hatch on the tank and throw a grenade! I think that will do the job! Wad about if you throw a grenade into the barrel of the tank? will the tank then be useless?