Tanks are useless

>BTFO by artillery
>BTFO by airplanes
>BTFO by infantry with AT weapons
>BTFO by other tanks
Whoever thought tanks would be a good idea?

Other urls found in this thread:

prodev2go.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/rus-ukr-lessons-draft.pdf
usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number08.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>atillery beats tanks
show me one war where this happend, artillery is shit for fighting tanks
>airplanes
only at verdun and iraq
>AT weapons
didn't work back then dont work now
>other tanks
if you have a better general

I guess we could have had all of wars fought in trenches lie post-apocalyptic weirdos

you're right, the military should be investing in more flexible alternatives

>Whoever thought tanks would be a good idea?
Tanks are a shock force. They aren't made to survive but to broke the enemy lines.

>only at verdun and iraq
>what was the overloard beyond day d

you seem to be lost here friend.

Infantry is useless
>BTFO by artillery
>BTFO by airplanes
>BTFO by other infantry
>BTFO by tanks
>BTFO by disease
>BTFO by lack of food

"The engine of the Panzer is just as much a weapon as the main-gun."

*breaks after 2 miles*

>They aren't made to survive
so they're made to be BTFO?

>artillery
Ukraine
prodev2go.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/rus-ukr-lessons-draft.pdf
>airplanes
The whole of ww2 and any modern conflict
>at weapons
Have proven capable of killing every tank short of a challenger 2

They are made to do suicide attack.

Artillery is useless
>BTFO by other artillery
>BTFO by airplanes
>BTFO by infantry with demolition charges and anti-materiel rifles
>BTFO by tanks

Airplanes are useless
>BTFO by artillery
>BTFO by other airplanes
>BTFO by infantry with AA weapons
>BTFO by tanks parking on the runway

Whoever thought war wasn't destructive?

stones master race weapon?

Tanks are better suited as short term shock weapons rather than anything long term, they spearhead offensive movements in order to open holes in a front line for infantry to pass through, and they absolutely excel at this role.

Defensively, their role is much more limited to just combating said offensive tanks, rather than hold defensive positions where they are little more than big targets in the way of breaking the front line.

This was best exemplified during the Kursk, where the Soviets opted to physically bury their tanks in the dirt all the way to the turret in order to make them static guns that had to be cleared 1 by 1 like pillboxes instead of immobilizing it and moving on, which ended up holding the line more effectively than a roaming tank.

german AT weapons bounced right off of t-34 tanks, they had to use another tank. Modern tanks cant be destroyed by anything short of a c4 explosive or western payload once deployed. Air superiority doesn't mean you can automitically kill every tank, in fact you need special dive bombers to destroy tanks as fighter jets were never designed to kill tanks.
>50 pages of shit prose and WORDSWORDSWORDS
shouldve just showed me a battle or a picture you HACK

>overloard beyond day d
the german tanks were destryoed by using triple as many tanks on the other side, american and british bombers couldn't drop their bombs right above their own forces during a battle

>Tanks are better suited as short term shock weapons rather than anything long term, they spearhead offensive movements in order to open holes in a front line for infantry to pass through, and they absolutely excel at this role.
But that's wrong you retard. Tanks have less pure offensive capability than infantry and artillery. Meanwhile, infantry doesn't have a high degree of tactical mobility. You do it the other way around, you spearhead with your infantry and heavy guns, and the tanks pass through.

...

When Guderian said that, the heaviest tank he had was the Panzer A, which was quite reliable since it weighed 20 tons, exactly what the suspension and drive train was rated for. Most of his force was even lighter, Panzer 3, Panzer 2, and Panzer 38t.

By the time the big cat failwagons rolled onto the stage, Guderian had been kicked into a paper pusher position.

>the german tanks were destryoed by using triple as many tanks on the other side
That's caused by Germany having operational units in the 30-50% ratio at best from constant mechanical fuckery
>Let's increase the weight of the tank and do nothing to compensate the drive!

>artillery is shit for fighting tanks
Is this opposite day?

most of those figures agree with my three to one ratio for tank warfare in western europe

>Tanks are a shock force. They aren't made to survive but to broke the enemy lines.
Tanks were not made for breaking through. Infantry break through, tanks enter through the gap and exploit the rear. This is tank 101.

tanks are fast moving and heavily armoured units that are designed to punch through positions, artillery is mainly used as as fire-type weapons to lower morale as they are hard to aim and bad at destroying fortifications despite their reputation for doing so. Tank gunners are protected in an iron shell that benigns the explosions of artillery so they don't suffer from much demoralization

No, they don't, certainly not on losses. The most common engagement type pitted 104 Shermans against 93 Panthers. And that gave 5 Sherman losses to 57 panther losses. Can you read?

Americans also constantly increased the weight of the M4 by jerryrigging extra armor or even concrete barrier on it.

>tanks are fast moving and heavily armoured units that are designed to punch through positions
No, tanks are specifically not designed to punch through positions. They are exploitation weapons.

> artillery is mainly used as as fire-type weapons to lower morale as they are hard to aim and bad at destroying fortifications despite their reputation for doing so.
No, artillery destroys 90% of things in war. The rest of the army's role is mostly to move artillery to where it needs to go and also to tell artillery where it should fire.

>total engagments 86
>allied weapons: 797
>enemy weapons: 327
thats about a 3 to one ratio. If I had to guess why your measly 19 engagements worked out that way I'd have to say it was during the battle of the bulge where the germans suffered heavy losses from inferior tactics and generalship. In any case, what you posted is just some bean-counters memoir, any primary document will support my account.

>artillery destroys 90% of things in war
I dont think you've ever been to war, I ahve and artiellery was always very difficult to aim because of how many factors are involved in them, and because its a cowards weapon and cowards make shit fighters. I'd like you show me a war where artillery killed 90% of an enemy, I bet youd quote teh swedes who actually lost their invasions despite their leather cannons. Even by WW1 artillery killed more people on your side than your opponents side. Are you talking about colateral damage? BEcause that has very little effect on a battle's outcome save seiges
Tanks are the modern equivalent of heavy armored knights, they're meant to overrun enemy positions as infantry would get annihalted if they fought a tank and do as was seen in both Iraq wars.

>Counting all engagements across all weapon types instead of just the tank to tank ones
>Getting the ratio wrong thusly. 188 to 147 is a LONG way off from 3:1.
> Citing "inferior tactics and generalship" specific to the Bulge and not the OTHER times they got their shit pushed in at battles like Arracourt, Cobra, and the Falaise pocket.
>In any case, what you posted is just some bean-counters memoir, any primary document will support my account.
Then cite some, you retard. I mean, after all, you've been wrong about literally everything else, including how to read a cell chart, so why not throw in some more turds?

The combat records are clear, German armor was incredibly ineffective against American armor, and only succeeded when you had them in ambush roles, something they're no better at than just hiding an anti tank gun or two and shooting from cover.

Are you ok m8?

Fucking wrong.

Not by 15 tonnes like the Tiger II

It's fucking right though.

No, it's completely right. usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number08.pdf

Check out page 41, "The attack". You won't see instructions for use of armor in the assault there.

Thing is while that undoubtedly would stress the drivetrain and transmission it's by no means comparable to a permanent change like you saw with German tanks. Jury rigged armor and concrete barriers are temporary, attempting to produce an entire line of shermans with concrete barriers built on is comparable.
Tl dr Germans over stressed their cars more often than Americans which resulted in lower general reliability (replace cars with tanks, the idea is the same even in the automotive industry)

The M4A3E2 Sherman “Jumbo” weighed 84,000 lbs, (38.1 metric tons) an increase of 24,000 lbs (10.8 metric tons) over the 60,000 lb (27.2 metric ton) M3 Lee that used the same transmission, chassis and suspension.

>you need special dive bomber tactics

are you 80 years old?
What was it like fighting in the war

The German 37mm bounced off of T-34s
50mms, 75mms, 88mms, did not.
also
>dive bombers

Infantry are useless

>BTFO by artillery
>BTFO by airplanes
>BTFO by infantry with MG weapons
>BTFO by tanks
Whoever thought infantry would be a good idea?

> M3 Lee that used the same transmission, chassis and suspension

> Transmission

The transmission of the Jumbo, especially the final drive, was significantly beefed up. The gears in the final drive for the Jumbo are somewhat wider than the gears on the Lee, in order to spread the load over a greater area. The gear ratios in the gearbox for the Jumbo are also lower, which reduces top speed but offers more torque to get the tank moving.

> Chassis
The shape is similar, but the Jumbo has a welded hull while the M3 has a cast/riveted hull

> Suspension
Jumbos all had the improved HVSS over the Lee's VVSS. The track links used on the Jumbo were later versions that could have an edge extension to raise the surface area of the tracks in order to lower ground pressure.

So a considerable amount of automotive work was put into the Jumbo, it was not merely welding a thicker armor onto the tank.

the people fighting trench war, being shredded by machine gun fire and bombed with muster gas, it appeared they worked as intended in both world wars and broke the back of any none sufficiently mechanized army


asking stupid questions like that made you in to either a troll, autist or an actual retard ... or combination of the above

>not taking attackers vs defenders into account
You are a fucking moron, stop posting.

Because tanks are design to enter the breach in the frontline, made by infantry. That's called exploitation: tanks are a good package of mobility, firepower and survivability, that is designed to wreck havoc in rear areas and survive while infantry solidifies the gains.
Also, tanks don't fight in vacuum, they are just one branch of combined arns.

What tech has no weakness?

>Whoever thought tanks would be a good idea?
These guys
>AY YO HOL UP
>so you be saying I don't have to charge a machine gun on foot but can drive this giant metal sucker at it instead?

>these guys
pic related

Le horse archers

They can fuck up pretty much any ground target in a 4km+ radius and require other units to lug around heavy anti-tank equipment to have a chance in countering them.

Technicals are the modern day horse archer, swap out its armaments between heavy MG and tow missile when necessary

That's a Panzer III right?

Yes

>I bet youd quote teh swedes who actually lost their invasions despite their leather cannons
wtf is this nonsense. Has anyone ever claimed Sweden had such good artillery?

Thanks breh, just trying to keep my mind on edge

*blows up your 60-ton tank with a 20kg launcher

heh...nothin personal

> > Transmission
> The transmission of the Jumbo, especially the final drive, was significantly beefed up.

The transmission was the same throughout the production run of the Lee/Sherman, only the final drive (i.e. the “axle”) gear ration was altered.

> > Chassis
> The shape is similar, but the Jumbo has a welded hull while the M3 has a cast/riveted hull

While the superstructure changed as the war progressed, all Lee/Sherman tanks throughout the war used the same chassis, with the exception of those using the twin Detroit Diesel engines, which was slightly lengthened.

> > Suspension
> Jumbos all had the improved HVSS over the Lee's VVSS.

As you can see from the pics, the Jumbo used the same VVSS as the Sherman, the HVSS wouldn’t be available until Dec1944, almost a year after production of the Jumbo had concluded.

> The track links used on the Jumbo were later versions that could have an edge extension to raise the surface area of the tracks in order to lower ground pressure.

Which was developed for and used with the standard Sherman.

> So a considerable amount of automotive work was put into the Jumbo, it was not merely welding a thicker armor onto the tank.

In fact that was essentially it, as the design was fully capable of being up-armored to a considerable degree, a 40% increase in weight giving it better protecting then a Tiger I.

*eradicates your Javelin team*

Tanks are designed to penetrate a defensive line and exploit the breakthrough and disrupt their lines, a successful tank assault means that the enemy defensive line is rendered useless and the tanks have penetrated too deep and advancing too fast for new ones to be made

>Because tanks are design to enter the breach in the frontline, made by infantry. That's called exploitation

That’s a tactical consideration, not a technical one.

The British Churchill for example, was designed as an “infantry tank”; slow and heavily armored for assaulting fixed positions and creating a break in the line, so that lighter and faster “cruiser tanks” could rush thru into the enemy’s rear areas.