You're just mad that the game is reflecting a more accurate portrayal of the tank, Taka. It's breaking down your ability to exploit one aspect of it.

You will get over it. You'll have to....or you'll quit the game. That simple. I hear you can still dominate the battlefield like a joke in Battlefield Vietnam with the Soviet attack chopper. Why don't you go play that?

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 ratio as measured against all Tigers lost, regardless of reason,
is still a credible 5.4 to 1 kill ratio.

There are only a few examples of heavy tank battalions employed as a
breakthrough force. Therefore, it is difficult to assess their effectiveness accurately in the
offensive role for which they were developed, organized, and fielded. In the few
instances where the German leadership employed a heavy tank battalion as a consolidated
unit in the offense, it achieved credible results and was successful in penetrating at least
one echelon of the defensive zone.

Where is your source material?

But yea, the Soviets lost the most, particularly because they were poorly built AND poorly manned.

I'd call that a mix of luck with a really well placed shot using a highly effective rocket.

In Dust terms, a proto AV used at the right time after maybe an adv or proto tank's shields have already been hit.

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.

Especially in Russia. If he was directing Operation Barbarossa the war could have been much longer, and may have ended much more favorably for the Germans.