Why did Zhukov use solders as the armour for his tanks?

>isnt

>isnt

>isnt

>you don't need arguments when you can just be autistic until the other person goes away

claiming that something isn't an argument isn't a vaild argument

>you don't need arguments when you can just call people autistic until the other person goes away

I have an argument. It is here Read the german military doctrine, it includes shit like a bag of grenades, or a plank with a land mine on it.
You had to get next to the tank to use these. Having a guy with a rifle on the tank made it more difficult.

>"i think you are the one that isnt very smart here"
you can't just shitpost thinking your hotshit if you have a mistake in your post

1. I didn't post that.
2. Skipping an apostrophe on a post on Veeky Forums's history board isn't on the same level as claiming russians used infantry to protect armor from bullets.

You are being retarded, and are aware of it. Stop that.

>you don't need arguments when you can just call people autistic until the other person goes away

Tanks are more sturdy. No need to produce transporters. You can make more tanks. Profit.

Tell it about Germans, they used the same shit.

Desantniki really aren't the worst way to go. It's pretty interesting.

If you want more neat WW2 history, read up on the Cossack mixed cavalry/armor regiments. That was baller as fuck.

this?

could you give me some link to read about it?

combined arms and battle in deep

Do people really think the soviets used soldiers to shield their tanks? It was just a form of improvised APC where they would dismount as soon as they made contact with the enemy.

So they can catch the shells and give them to loader who will fire them back at the mutie panzer.

It seems to works, since they still do that

I read about it in Iron Cavalry by Ralph Zumbro, and almost all of his citations came from old Red Army reports and a lot of historical issues of American tanker magazines during- and post-WW2 in the library of congress. I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with internet links.

burgers sat on their m113s throughout the vietnam war

they lost the war tho

>do this
>single handedly defeat the Nazis

>AHAH THEY WERE NOT SMART LOOOOOOL

not until we decided to pull out user
not until we decided to pull out

>AnotherGreatVictoryForTheUS.jpg

you are now imagining AP touching flesh and bone before metal

Pound for pound, bone is stronger than steel. Zukov knew this

and americans

and the british

Real question - lets say a comely German youth shoots his panzerfaust or panzershrek at a Russian tank, and itstead of striking the side of the tank, it happens to hit a Russian soldier who is riding it. Would the rocket penetrate THROUGH the soldier and damage the tank, or explode prematurely due to contact with the soldiers body, and not sufficiently damage the tank?

It'd go off.

It still might damage the tank though. the jet of copper doesn't totally dissipate that quickly.

>we didnt lose until we lost

Brilliant insight user

>isnt

Steel isn't strong boy, flesh is stronger. Look around you.

THAT IS STRENGTH BOY
THAT IS POWER

THE STRENGTH AND POWER OF FLESH
WHAT IS STEEL COMPARED TO THE HAND THAT WIELDS IT

SUCH A WASTE
CONTEMPLATE THIS ON THE TREE OF WOE

No armored personnel carriers.

>calls others unsmart
>makes a spelling mistake in same post
typical il/lit/erate

>your

>make an APC to protect infantry from small arms
>they just ride on top of it because the interior is "cramped"

Why are footsloggers so fucking stupid?

>get hit by shaped charge
>turn into a smoking crater
burgers didn't even use cage armor

Can we discuss Conan the Barbarian on Veeky Forums
>tfw the orgy chamber music is pounding in your head right this second.

Me on the left.

This user knows his shit right here->
>russians lacked armored halftrucks so the infantry traveled on the tanks, this was both good and bad
>good because it was harder to separate the infantry from the armor, the infantry is their eyes once they get off
>bad because obviously armor attracts fire and the dessant is very vulnerable on them

>Tank desant (Russian: тaнкoвый дecaнт, tankovyy desant) is a military combined arms tactic, where infantry soldiers ride into an attack on tanks, then dismount to fight on foot in the final phase of the assault. Desant (from the French: descendre, "to disembark") is a Russian general term for airborne or parachute drops and naval infantry amphibious landing operations.

>The tactic was used as an expedient by the Soviet Red Army during World War II. Tank desant troops (tankodesantniki) were infantry trained in the tactic in order to offer small-arms support in suppression of enemy anti-tank weapons or enemy infantry using anti-tank grenades. After the war, T-55 and T-62 tanks were built with hand-holds for this purpose. In northern areas during winter, similar tactics were used by Soviet infantry riding the skids of aerosani or towed behind them on skis. Nowadays, this tactic is very rare (outside of dire emergencies) in well-equipped armed forces, with front-line troops usually riding in armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_desant

Ain't this some shit?

>Other military forces, including the United States Army in the Vietnam War, the Soviet Army in the War in Afghanistan, and the Russian Ground Forces in the First Chechen War, have chosen to ride atop their carriers while on patrol or routine movement, rather than inside them.

In contrast to the offensive Soviet tank desant tactics of World War II, these were soldiers who wanted to be able to move from their vehicles quickly in case of ambush (which often turned their transports into death traps). Fearing land mines and rocket-propelled grenades widely used by guerrillas, these soldiers refused to stay inside the personnel carriers...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_desant#Modern_usage

Why don't they fill up the APC then put more soldiers on top
In the case of an ambush you would have more numbers and for a mine you would still have those on top survive