You are an idiot

We are thousands of years ahead in the future with materials and devices which have only ever been dreamed about

Who are you to say that we havnt got a tank which is a mobile death star with tracks which can wipe out the entire team

You are an idiot

We are thousands of years ahead in the future with materials and devices which have only ever been dreamed about

Who are you to say that we havnt got a tank which is a mobile death star with tracks which can wipe out the entire team

The TANK: "a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities"; "an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks"

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.

You are an idiot

We are thousands of years ahead in the future with materials and devices which have only ever been dreamed about

Who are you to say that we havnt got a tank which is a mobile death star with tracks which can wipe out the entire team

Because Anti-Tank weapons always keep pace and are never more than one generation behind.

So, before you call the OP an idiot for pointing out the truth...

HTFU.

You can kiss my ass

I do not report to anyone and if you dont like my opinion then go cry about it to nano or whoever

The game is designed in this century but the lore and everything else is thousands of years ahead so things could have changed

In fact why cant my tank fly instead and shoot lasers at anything that moves or throw monkeys at ppl instead

Its called imagination and doesnt have to stick to the rules of the real world since its a game

******* idiot

In fact why cant my tank fly instead and shoot lasers at anything that moves or throw monkeys at ppl instead

Its called imagination and doesnt have to stick to the rules of the real world since its a game

******* idiot

The lesson here is simple: Tanks are not blitzkrieg devices or tools. They are infantry-support, and anti-vehicle. Using them without consideration for these roles...and just trying to one-man it around the battlefield....SHOULD BE...and will be....the easiest way to waste away a Tank.

Insubordination within EoN....fascinating.

"things could have changed" ---> You used the key word "could", well guess what: They didn't. Get over it.

Throw monkeys? I see you're just a troubled youngster who's butthurt over losing his ability to troll around Ambush matches. That truly is...'imagination.'

You aren't on the game's development team so your imagination is worth about as much as a toilet with no seat.

They don't say 'the truth hurts' for no reason. They also say...'You can't handle the truth.' I guess you're just a great example of that Taka.

We can also use tanks to kill people miles away we can also do that with an apache

Apache is closer to a dropship, don't you think? Or perhaps if they made an "attack-dedicated" dropship with no transport and heavier weapons.

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?

Acurate portrayal

Okay then if 1 AV person can solo a tank then why dont we just have 1 HS = death and several bullets in the chest = death

Make it super realistic like life with no respawn

But if we did that it would more or less be COD in space and shields/armor and everything in the game would be absolete and pointless

Then again would that be fun making it into a twitch shooter? well it doesnt matter because war isnt fun but it should be accurate like life and reflect war

Wrong game ther G this is DUST and not cod

Two troops in WW2 with a small rocket could take out a Panzer IV with 1-2 hits. No different from an "AV nade"

Acurate portrayal

Okay then if 1 AV person can solo a tank then why dont we just have 1 HS = death and several bullets in the chest = death

Make it super realistic like life with no respawn

But if we did that it would more or less be COD in space and shields/armor and everything in the game would be absolete and pointless

Then again would that be fun making it into a twitch shooter? well it doesnt matter because war isnt fun but it should be accurate like life and reflect war

Wrong game ther G this is DUST and not cod

Two troops in WW2 with a small rocket could take out a Panzer IV with 1-2 hits. No different from an "AV nade"

We are thousands of years ahead in the future with materials and devices which have only ever been dreamed about

You can kiss my ass

I do not report to anyone and if you dont like my opinion then go cry about it to nano or whoever

The game is designed in this century but the lore and everything else is thousands of years ahead so things could have changed

In fact why cant my tank fly instead and shoot lasers at anything that moves or throw monkeys at ppl instead

Its called imagination and doesnt have to stick to the rules of the real world since its a game

******* idiot

Two troops in WW2 with a small rocket could take out a Panzer IV with 1-2 hits. No different from an "AV nade"

A Challenger tank in Iraq took over 14 RPGs and was fine except for the tracks

Calm down, kicking and screaming isn't going to get you anywhere on this forum. Plus, you make yourself look crude when you use insults in an attempt to prove your point. Lax

I don't know about the panzer, but I've heard a lot about german tanks where american tank shells and bazookas would just bounce off.

Okay let me throw my two ISK into the argument here, and btw I'm non military historian and haven't served in the armed forces so my knowledge of the military is mostly confined to having read a couple of books about military stuff. But from what I've read it seems like warfare is built on principles, and though the method and technology used may change those principles don't.

And what grezkev here is trying to say(well this is what I got from his post) is that though the tech maybe be thousands of years more advanced than what we have currently, the same things that applied in WW2 apply now .

And taka, the more I read of your posts the more I feel like face palming.

Well go do it

But instead of your palm how about a brick wall

I'm talking to one that's for sure...

And aren't you and grezkev in the same corp, if he really does outrank shouldn't you show at least a little respect, cause if that's how you treat everyone who disagrees with you, I don't see you staying in any corp for long.

And yet they cannot make a rifle with the 550 meter effective point target range of an M-16 which was first designed in 1956.

Hi, Welcome to Dust 514. a VIDEO GAME!! not a realistic simulator. Balance > realism.

A Challenger tank in Iraq took over 14 RPGs and was fine except for the tracks

Fun thread. Arms races are very interesting. RPG probably don't destroy RL tanks like they did but now they use different weapons to destroy them. Shaped charges destroy tanks with ease compared to a RPG. Lastly, take any war machine that has ever been invented or ever will be invented and take support away from it and see what happens. The Abrams tanks of today have never suffered a loss from enemy fire. USA USA USA. That being said how long would they last without support to repair, refuel and resupply. Our tanks don't need ammo or fuel, how many tears would be it HAV pilots had to buy and reload ammo. I hope they do one day. All the tankers talk about spamming AV but HAV only have a cool down, I consider that spamming if you don't even have to reload.

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.

I am calm

I just find it funny he tried to pull rank since we are in the same alliance

Im waiting to see if im kicked out because i harmed his precious feelings

Where is your source material?



that is a quote from CHRISTOPHER W. WILBECK, MAJ, AR

and one more quote from Christopher W, Wilbeck



source

Soviet Union: Between 96,500 to 100,000 tanks
UK : Around 20,000 tanks
USA: Around 20,000 tanks
Germany: Around 45,000 to 50,000 tanks

IMO tank balance is this: if x amount of person(s) can operate a tank effectively ungainst unprepared infantry, then it should take x amount of persons who are equipped to counter the tank (AV)

And conversely, it should take x amount of infantry to counter x amount of AV players. Keep the ratios equal when dealing with the hard counters and you get balance. Those who are ill prepared or unequipped to handle their attacker die.

Then the game becomes knowing when and how to use your chosen specialization.

In a lobby shooter with limited player counts, you cant make tanks take 4 people to every one tank kill, because that leaves 3 free people on the other team to do as they wish unnopposed...

Where is your source material?

Lieutenant Taka of the Allied Corporation Red*Star of EoN, please don't talk to higher ups in such a manner. Perhaps it would do you wise to take a quick glance at who you're responding to.

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.

Insubordination within EoN....fascinating.

"things could have changed" ---> You used the key word "could", well guess what: They didn't. Get over it.

Throw monkeys? I see you're just a troubled youngster who's butthurt over losing his ability to troll around Ambush matches. That truly is...'imagination.'

You aren't on the game's development team so your imagination is worth about as much as a toilet with no seat.

They don't say 'the truth hurts' for no reason. They also say...'You can't handle the truth.' I guess you're just a great example of that Taka.

Umm... Technically, the Soviet Union was part of the Allies.

Not a warm-and-cuddly buddy-buddy part, but officially allied to the US and UK.

So, while what I think you meant was correct (US & UK lost less tanks), the exact statement was incorrect.

It is also worth noting that without the Soviets zerging the Germans with Militia gear, the US and UK would likely have lost to the German's Proto gear. At the very least, the war would've lasted a lot longer.

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

Umm... Technically, the Soviet Union was part of the Allies.

Not a warm-and-cuddly buddy-buddy part, but officially allied to the US and UK.

So, while what I think you meant was correct (US & UK lost less tanks), the exact statement was incorrect.

It is also worth noting that without the Soviets zerging the Germans with Militia gear, the US and UK would likely have lost to the German's Proto gear. At the very least, the war would've lasted a lot longer.

I'm talking to one that's for sure...

And aren't you and grezkev in the same corp, if he really does outrank shouldn't you show at least a little respect, cause if that's how you treat everyone who disagrees with you, I don't see you staying in any corp for long.

True dat.

Though they did zerg their way to Berlin and beyond. There's something to be said for not carrying about your "comrades".

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.

Why respect someone that hasn't given you reason to respect them?

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.

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've been running standard and advanced tanks for the past year. when have u seen a proto tank. blacks ops maybe but it didn't have the right modules so it was not a proto tank. there has been no proto tank but there is proto and officer av. and next build we have a upgraded sica and standard tanks. so yea we r crap until ccp decides to give us proto tanks.

Honestly, Abrahams tanks are, to the best of my knowledge, used almost exclusively for AV, unless they want to blow up a house or something.

I am calm

I just find it funny he tried to pull rank since we are in the same alliance

Im waiting to see if im kicked out because i harmed his precious feelings

The fact that he has been given a senior position (I'm assuming here) shows that their is clearly someone in alliance leadership who respects him or values what he can contribute, at the very least taka should have kept any insults or sarcastic language to himself, just because someone hasn't proved themselves to your satisfaction shouldn't mean you should disrespect them.

Wrong game ther G this is DUST and not cod

If I was ceo and we had ranks he would be out. In top level matches those types of things get you invited or benched.

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.

Rommel

Field Marshall Erwin Rommell! !

You know some historians actually believe that if Rommell were allowed to do what he wanted to Germany could have won the war. The 7th Panzer

Your military history is wrong.

The semi long version

I did not read all the posts however this brings up a interesting historical point. Not to be too blunt but the Germans used Blitzkrieg to DESTROY the French early in the war. That is why all of France fell in 6 weeks. Now lets look at the French and German tanks at the beginning of the war. The French had the LARGEST and HEAVIEST tanks. They were prepared for another WWI not a WWII. The Germans had lightly armored FAST tanks. And so they simply outflanked, double envoloped, and Blitzkrieged the heck out of the French. Spearheaded by their Panzers. It was not untill later when the King Tiger came around than the Germans used big heavy tanks. The American's Sherman was picked apart and destroyed by the German tanks, Its main advantages were the fact it was small, easy to repair, and REALLY CHEAP, so the US just pumped out thousands of them. The French tanks were buried in tank trenches so they could be used as mobile artillery, and to get the best angles on their shots. Its called Blitzkrieg for a reason. Because the Germans used it very well in WWII, and it was impossible without tanks. Don't even get me started on other wars that use tanks with Blitzkrieg. Patton came in and used the Germans Blitzkrieg methods to beat the Germans. And so you have said



really Ask Heinz Guderian, Patton, or Rommel about that.




REALLY?!


In short,
Your military history is wrong.

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.

Perhaps. He might have been able to hit Moscow before winter. If not, though...

Russia was (and is) infamous for being a quagmire. Rommel (or any tank force) was extremely dependent on solid supply lines for fuel and ammo.

The Russians did a very good job of interrupting those and destroying supply depots rather than allowing the Germans to seize them. Not that they started the war with a lot of supplies.

They also didn't destroy the cities, they sieged them. Another example of an Order by ****** / Not listening to Generals...going wrong.

This thread fails for a number of reasons:

1.NO ONE wanted or uses tanks as blitzkreigs....no GOOD tanker does this....assuming this is what we want or asked for is incorrect

2. Tanks already and always have required infantry support

3. With all due respect Grez is neither a tanker or AV player so has little to no knowledge on their problems. Ppl get mad when tanks sit in the redline and snipe and want tanks to support infantry and we agree thats what we WANT to do but CCP FORCES us to pretty much stay away from hotzones so hence u have redline rail snipers. We wanted more engaging longer lasting tank fights and CCP gave us WEAKER tanks with more dmg...........NO ONE asked for more dmg we asked for a bit more survivability but instead got enforcer tanks..........which tbqh long story short are only useful as sniper tanks so again dont complain when ppl dont support infantry like we want.

This thread does a nice job of giving us a history lesson on tanks but fails badly at recognizing the problems this video game called DUST has in the tank v tank and tank v AV department.

I use proto AV and use tanks sparingly, Mavado.

CCP doesn't force you to do anything. They make the game then you play it how you prefer to.

as for 1) I see people blitz tanks allllll the time. Not gunna name corp names, but you all know them: They deploy into an ambush or skirmish and drop 2-3 adv tanks and just go steamrolling. I even know a certain someone that I enjoy playing with in EoN who does it all the time. o_0

2) tanks require it, but rarely do I see it given. I see people rally round tanks and just use them as cover. Rarely see people actively try to defend a friendly tank.

The semi long version

I did not read all the posts however this brings up a interesting historical point. Not to be too blunt but the Germans used Blitzkrieg to DESTROY the French early in the war. That is why all of France fell in 6 weeks. Now lets look at the French and German tanks at the beginning of the war. The French had the LARGEST and HEAVIEST tanks. They were prepared for another WWI not a WWII. The Germans had lightly armored FAST tanks. And so they simply outflanked, double envoloped, and Blitzkrieged the heck out of the French. Spearheaded by their Panzers. It was not untill later when the King Tiger came around than the Germans used big heavy tanks. The American's Sherman was picked apart and destroyed by the German tanks, Its main advantages were the fact it was small, easy to repair, and REALLY CHEAP, so the US just pumped out thousands of them. The French tanks were buried in tank trenches so they could be used as mobile artillery, and to get the best angles on their shots. Its called Blitzkrieg for a reason. Because the Germans used it very well in WWII, and it was impossible without tanks. Don't even get me started on other wars that use tanks with Blitzkrieg. Patton came in and used the Germans Blitzkrieg methods to beat the Germans. And so you have said



really Ask Heinz Guderian, Patton, or Rommel about that.




REALLY?!


In short,
Your military history is wrong.

This thread fails for a number of reasons:

1.NO ONE wanted or uses tanks as blitzkreigs....no GOOD tanker does this....assuming this is what we want or asked for is incorrect

2. Tanks already and always have required infantry support

3. With all due respect Grez is neither a tanker or AV player so has little to no knowledge on their problems. Ppl get mad when tanks sit in the redline and snipe and want tanks to support infantry and we agree thats what we WANT to do but CCP FORCES us to pretty much stay away from hotzones so hence u have redline rail snipers. We wanted more engaging longer lasting tank fights and CCP gave us WEAKER tanks with more dmg...........NO ONE asked for more dmg we asked for a bit more survivability but instead got enforcer tanks..........which tbqh long story short are only useful as sniper tanks so again dont complain when ppl dont support infantry like we want.

This thread does a nice job of giving us a history lesson on tanks but fails badly at recognizing the problems this video game called DUST has in the tank v tank and tank v AV department.

The TANK: "a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities"; "an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks"

---

The tank made its first appearance in combat in the shakedown in Austria following the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand. It was known simply as an 'armored car', and served a primary purpose of cover and a rallying point for police forces throughout Austria.

The Tank's big breakthrough however was with the Mark V British armored vehicle that was later replicated by Germany during the early months of World War 1. Slow, clunky, and poorly armed, the tank could do little more than traverse the battlefield and provide cover for flanking troops. It's armor however, was revolutionary. Not even the famous German .82 Howitzer could damage its outer shell.

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. They are infantry-support, and anti-vehicle. Using them without consideration for these roles...and just trying to one-man it around the battlefield....SHOULD BE...and will be....the easiest way to waste away a Tank.

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

Red Star Death Squad Official Statement

Eugene Killmore > We dont concern ourselves with forum drama the leadership of Red Star does NOT recognize the validity of any Red Star members post but will never censor otherwise.

Taka: We don't have a policy of kicking members out just because of forum drama. As long as you don't make a big deal about fighting for and with Grez and the alliance (even if you don't like them) when it comes down to it, it is all good.

Tell me where this statement says patton did not Blitz anything. So tell my why was Ike and Bradly so afraid of Pattons supply lines being cut? Why was the famous third army charge cut short? because Patton was BLAZING across Germany in record time. Yes obviously Patton did not command only tanks and no infantry. However infantry supporting tanks or vice versa and are tanks used for Blitzing are two completely different topics. Obviously tanks need to be supported, in game and in history, a combined arms synthesis is paramount in any military, RL or not. However Patton Blitzed the Germans SOOOO hard no one knew what to do. Not even his superiors.

The Blitz in the bulge was extraordinarily successful for the state of the German Army. It was on its dying breath, and it did not work like the first Blitz through the Ardennes forest because they now used larger tanks and now it was during winter. Despite this they still made ridiculous gains in land. The German army was already gone at that point, it was only a matter of time, but they went out swinging, as Fredrick the II said "Audacity, Audacity, always Audacity." BTW Patton called the attack, saying that that was what he would do in their situation. The Americans did beat them back, simply due to being in a much better place in terms of supply troop number, vehicle count, and freshness of troops.

Don't even get me started on American Blitz in the Iraq War.

the issue isn't the tanks or the AV, it's that we have to defend against proto AV with STD gear. How long would ya'll expect to last against a viziam with 3 damage mods if you've got STD shield extenders on ur suit? not very long and that's exactly how it feels for us. Tell me that is fair.

Don't act like the Allies were adept in blitzing. They were fast but the Germans had been way faster. The allies actually planned to get across France way faster then they did. They were surprised that they had been held back by scouting units and squads that had not been able to get away fast enough.