My dream is to become a tank commander

We all know tank crews are more important than the tank itself


True that, the invention of the tanks was made for crew protection in mind in the first place, to get from point A to point B in relative safety. (though its not 100% saftey in most cases.) another problem is also escaping from a compromised tank which also endangered crew members lives. It'll obviously be under heavy fire and also with a flaming tank which could blow up any second. The crew escape hacthes aint really that didnt take into account of broken legs or arms which would make them unable to climb out of the hatch. The Merkava meets those problems and allows the crew members to escape via the rear hatch.

Say besides the tank's 155mm gun, 7.62mm MG guns, what does the small arms tank crews carry? SMG's? Full rifles? rockets? And how in the world will they fit inside the tank when the crew is already cramped?

I've been thinking of that because the WW2 German King Tiger tank crews had StG 44s for small arms when they're tank was either knocked out or disabled

I met an austrailian tank crew in Iraq, they were some gritty dudes. Unshaven, smoking, dirty guys who cursed like pirates. They seemed more stressed then everyone else, probably cause they weren't in their tank...

I think the king tigers crew would have Mp-40 submachine gun or their service pistols, cos 44's are assault rifles, but then again, king tigers are pretty big. Same goes to modern crews. Though theres an AR-15 variant which are meant for crew members. some tanks like ACs or AFVs have portable rockets, but i think you need to mount them on the outside cupola.

Nah, thats like all of us aussies here.

Yeah, sit down inside a tank is cool, and save, but it's hard to run away from nuclear explosive. . . .

One thing that keeps coming back to my mind is this:

Desert warfare
PzKpfw II's are considered medium tanks am i wrong? And the brit crusader is also in the medium class range. But WHY THE HELL do the crusaders have to prefer speed over firepower? And a serious note, wasnt the PzK II's have guns equivalent to the shermans?

Tank stoppers
besides the all powerful rockets in this age of technology, can a single charge such as a satchel placed in the tracks obliterate the tank? On a note, can a .50 BMG kill the tank commander in the turret, like when Jarmen Kell shoots the driver and the vehicle moves no more in CnC Generals? Can that be possible?

-Curiousity kills the cat-

They perfer speed over power because in today's warefare there are not giant tank battles like in WWII, so you don't have to blast apart an enemey tank. Ironicly, you don't send a tank to fight tanks. If you know that their are enemey tanks, you send in an anti-ground aircraft like an A-10 to blow the shit out of it.

And no, a 50. cal wont kill any tank commander, not on the NATO tank models as far as I know. It'll just leave a BIG ass dent. And lastly, a satchel charge wont obliterate the tank, it'll just damage the treads. But alot of the tanks have be refitted to be able to run with damaged treads. They had to because of those damn IDEs.

Anyone who sits in a tank is a badass in my book cause on the field you are THE target of RPGs, and not the video game kind. I'd be parinod as fuck.

I dont think panzer 2s are medium, i think theyre light tanks and theyre not equal to Shermans. The Shermans have a 75mm cannon while panzer 2's have 20mm autocannons.

The british classify theirs by infatry tanks or cruisers. Infantry tanks is to support troops and more like fire support while cruisers are like calvary tanks, fast and decisive and theyre used in breakthroughs.

the Crusaders are cruisers and i dont really see it as sacrificing fire power.There armanents and armour are declared obsolete by the end of the war and other more powerful british tanks wer brought in. They were however used as second line tanks and numerous variants were made based on their chassis.

Depends how much explosives you put on the satchel. If you put an explosive device in front of a tank and itgoes under it. It can have the power of blowing the tracks or exploding dramatically and flipping the tank through the air several meters away. (actually happens).


As for the .50, it depends wat type of tanks and if the .50 is incendiary or something.

I applaud you for going for your dreams. I'm doing the same, which is why I'm part of the Air Force ROTC. Like many, I want a pilot slot, though they're going fast. I wouldn't mind flying an A-10 opposed to an F-22A, though those F-35As are starting to become more popular. It might be the main fighter jet once I commission as a 2nd Lieutenant.

On another note, pray that the enemy doesn't have an A-10 on their side. The Gatling Gun would tear the tank to shreds, though it's highly unlikely that you'll be up against any Air Force. The US likes to take out a country's Air Force first so it becomes a matter of bombing the right targets afterwards.

Ah yes... The A-10 thunderbolt... The bane aircraft of tanks, especially the soviet T-72.... BtW how does reactive armor work? I dont quite get the machination behind such a cool armor thats going against the M1 Abrams "chobham" (i think) armor. Will AP rounds work against that thing, or HEAT maybe?

You sure about "chobham" armor? Chobham armor is what's on the Gundam Alex to protect it. I think you're using the wrong term, but I sort of understand what you're trying to say.

Oops my bad... I think that armor is double plated armor that has a weird core inside each wafer... The only things i know that can be a very effective tank buster is:
AT4 (behold US military's hardware)
Kornet E (knocked an abrams in iraq)
RPG 7 (sure looks like it can pack a punch)
FGM-92 Javelin (i think the FGM-92 is for the stinger)
AT mine (maybe it can kill the tank)
a well placed charge
AT cannons (duh...)
other tanks

I think reactive armor is weak to all of these since i still dont know how they work...

reactive armour is an armour type which does anythin to react towards any attempts to attack the tank. theres a few types out there, and theres an equal if not more ways of defeating them.

Anti-tank (AT) is anything that can penetrate and eliminate the tank. It can be anything.

Mines are generally meant to disable a tank like destroying the tracks or damaging rather then destroyin it, and those techniques have proven during the second world war as the Germans have learnt.

So what you're saying is the mine can only incapacitate the tank rather than destroying them? And exactly HOW will the armor react? Explodin at the ordnance? Bulging out to stop the round? And one more thing, If you get hit by another tank (lets say you have a T-72 and your opponent is a similar tank) will the overall armor be lessened if some of the reactive armor bricks go bye bye?

Theres explosive reactive armour which when hit by a missile, it explodes outwords like a claymore mine. It unleashes a directional blast which makes the missile detonate harmlessly away from the main armour. This is the most common reactive armour.

Another reactive is the use of rubber or bouncy materials to literally, bounce off the impact. The Russians have used bedsprings and mattreses for their tanks during the siege of Berlin in the second world war to defeat thePanzerfaust and other anti-tank missiles.

Another is the use of rubber or foam like material to inert some of the blast and lessen the impact.

Speaking of AT capabilities, was the Panzerfaust THAT effective against tanks? I thought that it could only knock out medium tanks such as the sherman (coz i saw a pic of a particular sherman that looked like it was punched by a metal fist at the side)... So in the explosive reactive armor brick each is directed OUTSIDE of the tank? One more thing, did the panzerschrek held the 'most dangerous thing a panzergrenadier can carry against a tank'?

This is begining to sound like a FAQ

The panzerfaust is a cheap reliable and one of the most easiest mass produced anti tank weapon produced. during Nazi Germanys last ditch attempts against the russians, they would arm entire armies with them instead of rifles. In the eastern front, the weapon was responsible for 70% percent of knocked out russian tanks, but was probally due to the lack of other anti tank wep. Its a single shot weapon which means when the missile was launched, the tube would be spent and useless, and then it would be discarded to conserve weight.

It wouldnt be a problem for the Germans if it was only used for med tanks because the Russians field literally hundreds of T-34s at the last offensive at Berlin and the new Stalin Heavy tank wasnt produced in much numbers. Shermans are frankly, weak against most anti tank weapons fielded by the Germans, they are however extremely reliable, easily maintaned, good mobility and suspension. they did suffer high losses against new German tanks such as the Tiger and Panthers.

Panzershrecks when first introduced was a tankers nightmare, earning their name "amour terror". They are an adaption of the American Bazooka except with a larger missile. They have the penertrating power to destroy any tank armour including theStalin heavy tank. They were however very heavy and so sometimes the panzerfaust was favoured because of its weight. also the back ward exhaust from the missile firing causes a big flash and smoke coming out.

Panzerschecks isnt exclusively used by Panzergrenadiers only, but to all arms of the army. Its interesting you should refer them, i can tell you played Company of Heroes RTS.

Yup I do... I despise those guys because they always knock out my support armor... Oh and sorry for this beginning to be a FAQ... The Stalin tank was called IS2... Dunno what the IS stands for though... I think there was a faceoff of a certain tank battle that made a very awed impression on me... I think it was in Kursk that had the most pounding where Tigers laid waste to the T34s... A squad of Tigers (i think 4-5 units) vs. A group of T34s was in the German's favor....

The battle of Kursk or Operation Citadel was the largest tank battle ever, involving more then 6000 tanks.

the Tiger heavy tanks was initially first made in response to the Soviet T-34s at the begining of Operation Barbosa when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union. It was a heavy tank and mounted with the powerful 88mm cannon which can destroy virtually any allied tanks. It would usually in most cases for a single panzer to knock out four enemy tanks before it goes down, much less a unit of Tigers against a group of T-34s. however, it has a number of faults which made it fatal in most circumsances and was why the Germans lost most battles.

The Tiger is prone to malfunction and for a heavt tank, extremely heavy and slow. Its sophistication made it hard for engineers to repair. Tigers are merley a stopgap for German engineers to produce a more better tank to defeat the Russians. with the lessons learnt, the Germans then a produeced the Tiger 2 or better known as the King tiger, but it was too late for them to win the war.

The IS-2 tank is named after the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, and i suppose the initials is in russian. It was their most powerful tank in the war. It was made in resonse to the lack of adequate heavy tanks in the Red Army. This is purley a breaktheough tank where speed is discarded for protection and strenghth so it can break out of situations.