What's missing in the combat realism debate

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Venger
So what are the right circumstances? When should a non-gunpowder unit take out a tank unit?

First off when did I say something about a non-gunpowder unit? What I said was was in the right circumstances a few men cant kill a tank. Please dont try and change an argument if you cant win it. Its bad form.

As for what are the right circumstances there are way to many to list. If you had a clue you would know that.

Originally posted by Venger
So how are these forces to kill the tank? Do they transport in? You expect them to advance in cover close enough to destroy a tank outfit. How many people do you think we're talking about here? A roman legion versus a tank batallion. Do the math sparky.

Once again for you since you dont seem to read whats posted we were not talking about a roman legion nor a tank outfit. Stick to the argument. As for advancing under cover close enough to destroy a tank, you got it sunshine, thats how its done in the real world. Add to it that button tanks have very limited field of visions (and the closer to the tank the more limited it is) and its not that hard.

Originally posted by Venger
So WHY is the gun on there? The Sherman carried a .50 cal and twin .30's. Most WW2 era tanks carried at least two, often three AI weapons. Do you think the gun is on there for what, show?

It there for shooting at infantry yes. It also has a poor arc of fire, much worse that the turret MG just like I said. Are you saying thats wrong or just not understanding what I said?

Originally posted by Venger
You are rationalizing your entire argument - under the "right circumstances" nearly everything is possible.

No your rationalizing that M2HB= no one can get near tank, which is as stupid as it is false. As I point out its a hell of alot more easy to kill a tank then you or your buddy VetteroX like to think but then again the two of you have never been around them.

Originally posted by Venger
Is that your justification for defending the spearmen or three guys on your block theory of infantry anti-tank warfare?

I was defending spearmen where? I pointed out that amJordan1 was right about getting so close to a tank where it cant use its weapons against you which again is true in real life. Maybe you need to reread that post.

Originally posted by Venger
Oh great, you took the time to get a fact.

You should try it, you might also try reading whats posted.

Originally posted by Venger
Ooops. So much for your fact. I saw the god damn thing, the guy was rolling over EVERYTHING, until he straddled himself over a center median. Only THEN were the cops able to get on the tank, pry into it, and kill the driver.

No the man was killed before they opened the hatch by the officers pistol. The fact still remains he was killed by the pistol, and the same thing would have happen to any other crew members in the tank. Same thing happend numbers of times in WW2 also.

Originally posted by Venger
Are tanks mobile or immobile? Dork.

Never said they were child. Your the one whining about "sending tanks into no mans land without infantry support?" then later on in the post bring up a tank moving. I guess you think its only fair if you change the circumstances in your favor.

Originally posted by Venger
Which tank? Many, MANY tanks do not have a turret traversal rate that exceeds their turn rate.

Most of the modern tanks power assisted turrets can easily out slew a pivot from a dead stop. And a driver isnt going to spin around trying to find someone outside his tank who could be up to no good. Anyone thinking they would would be a fool. If anything they would drive off as fast as they could thus limiting what that person could do and allowing the turret to be able to get to a point where it could depress on the person. Spinning like a top ??

Originally posted by Venger
Another total mistatement of fact. Useless at close range? No, I think not - a gun is just as useless if you attack me from behind, are you going to argue a gun is useless at close range? Do you even think before you write this nonsense?

Umm are you really that thick or is that the best you can come up with? If your too stupid to understand what I said it can be distilled to this " The closer you get to a tank the more limited its arcs of fire become just the same as a person looking through a telescope has a wide field of view at long range but his field of view is no more than a few inches at point blank. I never said the gun doesnt work any more at close range moron. I said the gun is useless against a target just outside of the tank. Please dont try and twist it into something else

Originally posted by Venger
Nearly as apropos as getting beat by a concrete median. Who do you think is the larger group - tanks killed by infantry, or infantry killed by tanks? Why is the tank on the battlefied with all these inferiorities?

Gee you said "But not with three high schoolers and a homemade Molotov..." and now when its pointed out you try and dismiss it? If your going to make a stupid statement admit your wrong when your called on it

Originally posted by Venger
History laughs at your ignorance. Have you even examined what the presence of armor does to a battlefield?

And the presence of armor on the battle field has what to do with the fact that my statement that a few men can kill a tank? Thats right sunshine, nothing. The only ignorance here is you trying to obscure what the original arguement was.

Maybe when you turn 18 you'll join the service and see how things work in real life and will stop talking out of your hat.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Venger
I got 50 bucks that says an RPG cannot untrack an M1.

Well you could have 50 bucks saying the moon is made of cheese but its not.

Originally posted by Venger
Why is the tank buttoned? It's easy to sneak up on the tank when the crew is asleep as well, does that make the Sandman an effective anti-tank weapon? What do you think the tank crew does, just sit inside it playing cards?

Ohhh so you think they ride tall in the hatch when the enemy is around? Nice way to catch a bullet. God you are a fool.

Originally posted by Venger
Range of molotov - 15 feet.
Range of .50 cal - over 1 mile

You start with the molotov, I'll start with the .50 cal. We'll post the results here. Actually, I'll post the results here...

Wow another M2 magic charm argument that has nothing to do with what I posted. Try and stay on the topic child.

Originally posted by Venger
You are so stupid it's incredible! Why do you think they designed the tank? To kill other tanks? There WERENT any other tanks! Let's build this tank thing in case someone else builds a tank thing...

Child they were first made for that yes. They are made for killing other tanks now, not infantry support. Been that sop since the start of WW2 for most and the ones who didnt switched soon after.

Originally posted by Venger
"Consequently, the newest tanks did not fight in Afghanistan and the T-64 was the most modern tank tested there"

Funny since the 5th Guards Motorized Rifle Division stationed in Shindand, Afghanistan 1988 thru 1990 had an attached tank battalion with 40 T-80's. You go ahead believe whatever you read on the web

[adaMada]

Tanks vs Infantry arguement (or should I say flame): Wow. It's amazing how stupid people can be. Getting this emotional over this topic. I mean, A) it's off-topic, B) no one really cares, C) anyone who might have been interested in the arguement before (myself, for one) now is sick of hearing about it and no longer cares, and D) it isn't worth this much anger. In short: Conversations are fine. Good, in fact. Arguements are fine. But please, people, why resort to flaming... it just makes everyone pissed, including those who don't care at all!

As for the subject of this thread: I'm neutral. Haven't gotten far enough into a game to have this happen to me. When I get that far (if ever) I'll probably form an opinion one way or another .

One thing I am curious about, though, is how those who want to fix it think it should be fixed? Reintroduce firepower? Move all the unit stats for modern units up a ton, so it's balenced on a modern level but with attacks/defs of like 30 (have a tank with (30/25/2 or something)? Just out of curiosity... Also, what about that poor civ that can't get it's hands on oil? How can the game be made so that it's possible for them to survive? I mean, even if you say "if they don't have oil, make them find it/negotiate for it/fight for it" -- how can they be a power if they're troops are worthless? In short, how do you deal with that side of things?

Just being the devil's advocate, don't really have an opinion, but would like to know what people think about practical solutions to the problem, instead of just saying "it's wrong in theory".

-- adaMada

[Shiva]

Originally posted by adaMada
One thing I am curious about, though, is how those who want to fix it think it should be fixed? Reintroduce firepower?

You would have to put firepower back in. If you just jack up the numbers you'll still get streaks of bad luck. As for the civ that cant get oil he's screwed because of maintance. He cant build an huge army of lesser units because the cost to maintain are really to close the make a difference. When you get the ability to build new units the ones you do have should be cheaper to maintain.

As for the tank argument lol personally I think its funny when some kid whos never served a day in his life tries to tell me something I know and have been trained in is wrong.

[Pandir]

I think we should all write Bush and tell him how useless tanks are. Maybe we can convince him to sell them to other nations. That way if we ever get in a war we will be able to overrun them because they will be using those useless machines and we will have the l33t molotov cocktail and handgun brigade.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Pandir
I think we should all write Bush and tell him how useless tanks are. Maybe we can convince him to sell them to other nations. That way if we ever get in a war we will be able to overrun them because they will be using those useless machines and we will have the l33t molotov cocktail and handgun brigade.

Lol I never saids tanks were useless. Maybe you should ask someone to explain the big words in the posts for you before you make a sixth post

[Pandir]

Originally posted by Shiva
"Lol I never saids tanks were useless."

You certainly had some negative things to say about them

" You would also be suprised how easy it is to sneak up on a tank"

"Fact is grenades can detrack any tank and once that happens the crew is screwed because without help they are stuck"

"As for a molotov they can do alot more damage than you think if they happen to land on the engines air intakes of a modern tank."

"Killing a tank isnt as hard as laymen like to think"

"Tell it to the russian tankers killed by teenagers armed with molotovs in Finland or the Germans tankers who got the same in Russia by "high schoolers". "

As for the 6th post crack what can I say I have better things to do than post on a messageboard all day.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Pandir
You certainly had some negative things to say about them

And in none of them did I say they are useless, just not and end all be all weapon system laymen paint them to be. Maybe you should read the posts and try and get the gist of them before you post something foolish like you did since you didnt seem to understand what I said.

[Pandir]

I dont think anyone ever said tanks are the end all be all of weaponry.Maybe you should read my post and try and get the gist of it before you post something foolish.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Pandir
I dont think anyone ever said tanks are the end all be all of weaponry.Maybe you should read my post and try and get the gist of it before you post something foolish.

You seem to want to argue I guess because I pointed out your post was wrong. Im sorry for hurting your feelings by doing that but if you want to post something thats wrong you'll just have to deal with it.

Also if you want to argue you should at least come up with something like a point instead of just copying wording. Be original. If you get one let me know but till then I guess its best to treat you like some annoying child next door and ignore you.

[Venger]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Shiva

Ohhh so you think they ride tall in the hatch when the enemy is around? Nice way to catch a bullet. God you are a fool.

Have you ever, EVER even SEEN real combat footage? What do you have any idea what the tank commander does?

Wow another M2 magic charm argument that has nothing to do with what I posted. Try and stay on the topic child.

Try and come up with an argument that doesn't rely on the absurd, like supporting the AT in the hood...

Child they were first made for that yes. They are made for killing other tanks now, not infantry support.

Do modern tanks carry HE rounds or not? Why do you think they carry both? Dork.

Been that sop since the start of WW2 for most and the ones who didnt switched soon after.

Start of WW2? Have you never heard of close support tanks? Have you even seen a Sherman tank? Tanks battle each other for superiority...why? He whos armor survives owns the battlefield. If the tank wasn't designed to support infantry, they'd just pull over without any other tanks to shoot at...

Funny since the 5th Guards Motorized Rifle Division stationed in Shindand, Afghanistan 1988 thru 1990 had an attached tank battalion with 40 T-80's. You go ahead believe whatever you read on the web

Hmmmm...who should I believe?

1) CivDork
2) Battle report by the United States Army Foreign Military Studies Office

I'm going for number 2.

Venger

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Venger
Have you ever, EVER even SEEN real combat footage? What do you have any idea what the tank commander does?

No, I only trained in a combined arms unit that was mechanized. I have no idea what a tank commander does when the enemy is around

Originally posted by Venger
Do modern tanks carry HE rounds or not? Why do you think they carry both? Dork.

Lol the M1a2 carries HEAT rounds not HE rounds. I would be shocked if any of them other than maybe the russians still use HE rounds. There is a difference in them child. Heat rounds are made for soft vehicles and are passable for use on people but are far less effective than a HE round. As I said tanks are for killing other tanks now. Thats what thier main design is and has been based on since the second world war. HE indeed

Originally posted by Venger
Start of WW2? Have you never heard of close support tanks? Have you even seen a Sherman tank? Tanks battle each other for superiority...why? He whos armor survives owns the battlefield. If the tank wasn't designed to support infantry, they'd just pull over without any other tanks to shoot at...

Lol yeah the US started with tanks for infantry support and tank destroyers and ended the war with just a tank that could could kill other tanks real good and do infantry support good enough to be passable. Gee, isnt that what I said? That is the way they are designed and that is the way the army SOP is written.

A modern tank is far far far less effective at infantry support than an IFV. Why? Because the service puts out a design spec of what they what an item to do based on their current SOP. Thats how things get bought in the service. US army has had the SOP (since WW2) that tanks are for killing tanks. Killing infantry is a secondary concern.


Well im tired of your name calling and general cluelessness when it comes to armor, infantry, and how either works in the field so i'll have to ignore you like Pandir. If you get something based on a fact let me know, until then go away

Like I said in the other post it makes me laugh when some kid who's never been in the service trys to tell me that what I have seen and been trained at is wrong when hes never served a day in his life. I somehow doubt you have ever been around modern tank, much less on one or in one ( i have sunshine). Nobody could and make silly statements like you have, your like someone who reads a book on skiing and then trying to tell someone who has been skiing for years how its done.

[CyberbugFredrik]

I have been following the discussion between Venger and Shiva, and I must say I have found it very amusing.
I'm quite impressed with Venger's replies and how he always manages to include something funny and ironic in his statements.

Keep up the discussion guys. Just don't make it too dead-serious.

Watch the Dirty Dozen one too many times? The "right circumstances" you mention are an unsupported buttoned tank attacked by what, three guys with a panzerfaust? Or do they have phasers? Or an antimatter bomb? What are the right circumstances? I can take out an F15 with a bag of marbles if I can somehow get it into the intake, so does that make the plane vulnerable to me in the right circumstances?

You are so stupid it's incredible! Why do you think they designed the tank? To kill other tanks? There WERENT any other tanks! Let's build this tank thing in case someone else builds a tank thing...

First, the names Venger fuçko, try to get it right just once. Second, do you (don't answer, it's rhetorical, it's obvious you don't) know anything about the development of the tank? It was developed to break the trench lines of WWI Europe. Please, pick up a book at your local library. Or ask your hospital attendant for one...

[Pandir]

Originally posted by Shiva
You seem to want to argue I guess because I pointed out your post was wrong. Im sorry for hurting your feelings by doing that but if you want to post something thats wrong you'll just have to deal with it.

Also if you want to argue you should at least come up with something like a point instead of just copying wording. Be original. If you get one let me know but till then I guess its best to treat you like some annoying child next door and ignore you.

You are the one who seems to want to argue. You argue that you never said tanks were useless(despite the fact I never said you did).You also seem to think everyone believes tanks are magical super machines(also despite the fact no one ever said they are).You also seem to like to call people names did they teach you that in the military to?

You are the one who said all the remarks about situations and circumstances where tanks could be easily defeated by infantry and that tanks are only for killing other tanks(hence my sacastic post). The point of my post seems to be way over your head go back and read it 20 times and if you still cant comprehend it come back here and Ill try and explain it to you.