T34/85 vs 谢尔曼M4A3(76W)

对比一下这两种坦克，在大规模战争的背景下，哪种更优秀？

火力:美制M1 76mm坦克炮 使用被帽穿甲弹可以在1000米外击穿89mm的匀质装甲，使用HVAP可以在同一距离上穿透133mm的装甲。

俄式85 mm ZIS-53坦克炮，使用穿甲弹在1000米外穿深90mm。使用HVAP可以击穿118mm的均值装甲。美国在高速穿甲弹上优势明显，不过这要考虑到高速弹的准确度和威力稍差，以及俄式火炮在发 射榴弹支援步兵上的优势。 双方火力在同一水平线上，美炮的火力稍稍占优。

火控：M4A3E8的火控大幅增强，1X放大视角65度，5X放大时视角13度，明显比T34强，而且装备垂直稳定器。T34的火控相对简陋很多，而且瞄准精度比较差

防护：M4A3(76W)炮塔正面厚度90毫米，侧面51毫米，车体首上64毫米47°。侧面38-51毫米，无倾斜

T34/85炮塔正面厚度90毫米弧形，侧面76毫米20°，车体首上46毫米60°，侧面45毫米.

防护基本在同一水平上，T34侧甲有一定优势。

机动：发动机和单位功率上差距不大。但T34在最大速度，越野速度，行程，越壕爬坡过障等参数上占优。这可能是因为M4汽油机耗油量大。车体高大的缘故（？）

其他：M4的可靠性和可维护性二战第一，高大的车体相对豪华的设施保证了良好的舒适性，有利于乘员战斗力的保持。T34在可靠性上虽然也属优秀之列，但和M4还有差距。

M4的悬挂系统性能优良。不仅行驶平稳，而且潜力大，JUMBO在不大改悬挂的情况下重量达到了重型坦克的水平。在战场上美国大兵可以毫无顾忌的往他们的M4上加焊钢板挂沙袋来提 高防护。反观T34，几种同底盘的变形车重量都在30吨出头。T44，T43都在35吨之下。貌似这个重量就是T34底盘的极限？

安全性,T34的柴油发动机减少了燃烧的危险。但是从M4A3开始弹药采用水套防护，大大减小了殉爆的可能。

可生产性：T34工时5000左右，M4A3工时不明，估计大致在同一水平线上，

回归开头的问题，在大规模消耗战的背景下，那种坦克更优秀？

 

第二篇：Argumentative Writing-Tablet vs. Textbook

Argumentative Writing- Should Tablets Replace Textbooks？ In the present age, the phenomenon of seeing Ebook in tablets is increasingly popular. And there has been much discussion revolving around the question of whether tablets should replace textbooks. In this essay, I will compare and contrast tow typical opinions regarding tablets and textbooks, respectively. And, I will also mention my own view.

Convincing arguments can be made that tablets should replace textbooks. To start with, On a tablet, e-textbooks can be updated instantly to get new editions or information. As we know, school will not have to constantly purchase paper books, especially many students are looking books that are 7-10 years old with outdated material. But in the meantime, tablets are beneficial for the subjects that constantly change, such as biology or computer science. Moreover, it is widely accepted that files on the tablet can be downloaded onto any other tablet, increasing flexibility and convenience for teachers and students. Specifically, E-books and other files can be stored on “cloud” servers and accessed on any other device so that user can get the information through different kinds of device. An even more significant factor that should be taken into account is that tablets lower the amount of paper that teacher have to print for handouts and assignments, helping to save the environment and money. After all, teachers and students would spend a large number of paper, ink and toner if they use paper books.

By contrast, many other people assert that tablets can not replace textbooks. The main reason for their view is that children preferred traditional textbooks in which they can highlight the key words and write notes. Moreover, some may suggest that it is cheaper to invest in textbooks than tablets. According to the dates, in a 2008 study of public schools in Kentucky it was estimated that the cost per school for textbooks and supplies was only two tablets. Therefor, some people

conclude that tablets should not replace the printed books used in schools while tablets have their purposes.

From my point of view, I am in favor of the former view that tablets will replace the printed books someday. Apparently, tablets have already had the advantages that the printed books possess, such as highlighting the key words or taking notes. What’s more important,the first invest for textbook maybe is much less than tablets, but in the meantime we can only read some paper books. Differently, we can read any books if we own a tablets because there are a lot of websites that could offer e-books to download for free. Despite that, tablets contain many technological features that cannot be found in print textbooks. Tablets give users the ability to highlight and edit text and write notes without ruining a textbook for the next user. Tablets have a search function, a

backlighting option to read in low light, and a built-in dictionary. In a word, tablets will become more and more suitable for user with the development of computer technology.