Now that I've got the new Tamiya Pershing (thanks Gunnie), I wonder how it would have faired against the JS3 Stalin tank. Both seem to have been built as "Tiger Tamers". I have a lot of confidence in the Pershing, having served on its decendants, but that JS3 looks like a spartan beast. Built to go toe-to-toe with big tanks.

Any thoughts?

All we need now is an updated British heavy tank from Tamiya to complete the triad of the post war main battle tanks. Why no new Centurion? This tank had a long and notable career.

I would go with the Pershing It had the abbility to fire on the move,plus I think I read somewhere that the 122mm ammo for the Stalin tanks was 2 piece? Maybe it was another tank,not sure Plus from what I heard the Stalin 3 was prone to breakdown a lot
Chad #:-)

Hi Rob:
Well I had just about completed a perfectly interesting reply to your post and then some how completely blanked it out. Anyway the point being That I think or would like to believe that The Pershing would have won a One-on One Duel, Against The JS-3 . It would be intersting to know the statas on each. i.e. Enginme type, Speed, Gun Size, Range, etc. BUT ultimately as it was proved in ODS ( M-1 vs T-72/ T-80s of the Iraqi Rep-Guards) I think that it would have depended on the abilites and training of each tanks crew that would have been the deciding factor . BUIT then you already know this..


DAGGER-1

Well, I figured I would weigh in on this one. I find both vehicles very intriguing tanks. Several publications that I have state that the JSIII was the most formidable tank to about 1956. This was when both the US and Uk developed two models to specifically take on the JSIII these were the M103 and the Conqueror. The comparison between the JSIII and the M26 as has been stated often came down to crew training. JSIII had heavy armor 5" to 4" (for the M26) with a much better gradient providing it with mass of deflection with no shot traps. The drivers survivability was increased because he was centered behind the "point". It was a foot shorter presenting a lower target. It had a better ground pressure 11.25lb.in sqrd. vice 13.1 for the M26. On the negative side it was slower than the M26 and the commanders cupola was not an optical improvement. I don't believe it used two piece ammunition, but because of the design it only carried 28 rounds vice 70 rds for the M26. The M26 had a good commanders cupola with clear sites and a loaders hatch. I like the diesel engine for the JSIII. I believe the M26 was gasoline. I would think if the JSIII could get the first shot in; the M26 would have a problem. In the same situation I think the M26 with its ability to fire faster and move quicker may have had a slight advantage if it was in a good position. Anyway that is my thoughts. Butch Cassidy Tanks46.

Anyone get the new Trumpeter JS3M kit? I saw one at the local shop this weekend for $20. I heard some good things about it, but even Trumpeter kits that get rave reviews (like the M1 series) I still find a little lacking. The Tamiya one is really nice, but reviews say it is based off of a tank hacked together from different ones. I think it looks to be an excellent kit. I won't worry about getting the Trumpeter one.

Cookie Sewell reviewed the TRP kit over at Hyperscale. Just follow this link: http://www.kitreview.com/reviews/is3mreviewcs_1.htm

I also scratch my head when it comes to Trumpeter's kits. I always find myself wanting to pick up some of their modern Russian stuff but I am really unsure how it will end up turning out in the end. Anyway, hope this review helps you.

Cheers,
CDT Reimund Manneck
U.S. Army ROTC

I've seen his review, but I find that his reviews lean towards the rivet counter side of the house.

Rob, as another tanker and having read an article recently about the JS tanks, I would take the Pershing. Now, the E3 was a gasser, but everything after was diesel, so that is not a determiner. The crew training and leadership is another factor, but tactics is where the M26 line of tanks would have had another advantage. The JS3 was a "breakthrough" tank, meant to provide the heavy armor blow to put a hole in the Allies' lines and then let the faster tanks pass through. Basically, it would have been a "charge!" kind of thing.

The Pershing, deployed properly to take on the JS3 on the flanks, not fight them head on, would have done the job. No one fights a head-on gun-fighter duel with tanks unless 1) you have to (a chance meeting engagement) 2) you so far outgun and out-armor the enemy that you are almost invulnerable (M1A2 Abrams?)

My 2 cents.

Sabot,

While I am in favor of building Russian beasts, it is in no way that I would give the underhand to our (American) armor.

In fact, I know a bit about the "IS-III" and would easily take on the Pershing as the winner.

The IS-III suffered from the political BS of the Soviet bureacracy, the under-enginering that costs measures fight against, the constant upgrades to try and correct short-commings of the 'heavy-tank' theory behind Russia. These are just some few thoughts.

A real test is the fact that only a few of the IS-III's saw combat and these that did, were after two different upgrades before being sent to Egypt for the most part. The Pershing on the other hand........

Dave

It think I would have to go with the Pershing. During the Israeli campaigns while posing serious risk if you stumbled on it, the IS3 was defeated by the 90mm guns of the m48 patton. I think the term lumbering beast would apply. in a battle of menuever the Pershing would have come out on top. Does anyone know if reports were done on penetration abilities on the IS3s recieved from Israel at Aberdeen. This might give us some insight as well.

Josh WEingarten
aKa shiryon