Lieutenant Taka of the Allied Corporation Red*Star of EoN, please don't talk to higher ups in such a manner.

I am not an idiot, actually, I am a historian by profession and I expressed this quite simply because this is the origin of the tank. It is the only primary usage of the tank in warfare a game designer (CCP) has to work with in terms of developing their software.

"We are thousands of years in the future".......We are actually playing a game that was designed in the 21st century, a game whose designers are limited to the experiences of the 20th and 21st century for their designing utility of 'the tank'. To pretend that understandings and complexities beyond our own can exist in something that we ourselves created in the present is nothing short of ignorance.

Who am I to say that you haven't got a tank that's a mobile death star? Well I'm the guy that's here telling you that never happened before. And if you don't learn from history, you're bound to repeat it.

Besides, when you break it all down...the game is not very different from WW2 combat. Infantry are the SHOCK troops...the primary roles of the battlefield. Their ability to put down a tank should be higher, if not equally matched, by their ability to be killed by one. Infantry have always been more mobile than tanks, and their ability to flank a tank, surround it, and destroy it should be no different "a thousand years from now" as it is today.

And this is all said by someone who prefers to roll with a tank....and will roll with a tank after the update. Difference between me and the QQers is I can rationalize the change. ADAPT OR DIE.

Get over it Taka. Then go talk to Nano.

An RPG achieved a mobility kill on an M1 Abrams tank, with only one round. They used a tandem warhead. It is able to defeat reactive armor. So even now on the modern battlefield a terrorist can solo a tank.

We didn't see the tanks true potential and power however until World War II against the Germans in Europe. A.H's Panzerjager division was well equipped with vehicles that featured heavy armor in the front, and large powerful 80mm cannons. The use of the tank by the ***** was quite simply: Demoralize the enemy. Troops would create a line of scrimmage, then after securing a position would charge their tanks into enemy territory. The tactic was part of the German Blitzkrieg, however it came with a heavy consequence: There was a loss factor of about 40% of all tanks that engaged in the first assault.

The French and the Allies used their tanks in a different manner. Rather than arm them with large cannons that could destroy an entire building, they built smaller 45-60mm turrets that could use a variety of shells (anti-tank, anti-infantry, anti-air). Some of the tanks were even so versatile that rockets could be placed on them to fire blind into enemy territory.

In the Allied Invasion of Europe (Operation Overlord), the Canadian, British, and American forces siezed upon key cities such as Carentan in the inner regions of Northern France with the primary goal of linking up beachheads together. The reason was obvious: Tanks could not advance into France without a clear road. Infantry were required to secure areas of advancement before tanks could be used to control the area and lock it down. In other words, The Allied used the tanks as a secondary defensive line, and their primary role was to assist troops.

Not surprisingly, the Allies won the war and lost less tanks than anyone...including the Soviet Union who tried to use tanks in a similar way to the Germans.

The lesson here is simple: Tanks are not blitzkrieg devices or tools.

That's my opinion on everyone's complaints about the tanks.

You sir, apparently did not read my OP very accurately. The Blitzkriegs were effective, but had a high loss ratio of tanks in comparison to allied pushes which were done primarily through infantry platoons backed up by tanks behind them. We're talking about what the tank is ideally used for. The Blitz of the Bulge didn't help in the long run...so....yea.....

Patton didn't blitz anything, btw. Patton would be facepalming over anyone who disagrees with my OP.

"Patton trained tank crews to operate in support of infantry, and promoted its acceptance among reticent infantry officers"
Source: Axelrod, Alan (2006), Patton: A Biography, London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1403971395
Similar statement made in: Blumenson, Martin (1972), The Patton Papers: 1885GÇô1940, Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, ISBN 0-395-12706-8