ORIGINAL: zgrssd
How do you "missuse" a tank?Misuse of a specific equipment in a specific scenario is not really much proof of that to be honest.
How does that constitute missuse of a tank?
Those old tanks did walking speed - on good ground. Of which there was none in the reality of warfare.
When infantry attacks from any direction without a convenient sightport and machinegun, it was a actuall metal coffin.
A immobile tank is a speedbump for infantry and other tanks.
If I want to defend, I could get 1 Tiger II tank for 321,500 Reichsmark or 10 (ten!) 8.8 cm Pak 43 for 260,000 RM.
In case you wonder, that is the same gun.
Tanks do not defend. They are wasted on it. They propably just tell the enemy where your ambush is.
Whatever room there is to counterattack during planetary defense is covered by the +25% "Armored Defense" bonus you got for having a Tank in DW1. I would asume it exists in DW2 as well.
I know my WW2 and 1 pretty well as I'm well versed in it... I still am not talking about tactical application or misuse of said equipment. It also does not matter how many anti-tank guns you have if they are not where the enemy attack is, the tank can be in reserve and respond to an attack the more immobile guns can't... so you can't compare the cost of ten anti-tank guns with one tank, they simply do different things. Both is equally useful in defence but in different ways.
It is more operational level use of forces we talk about anyway, such as the Russian army defending against the Germans in WW2 without their armoured forces in 1941 to 1943... that would not have gone so well... likewise the German defence of the Russian offensive from 1943 to 1945 would have collapsed pretty fast with no armoured forces.
That is... armoured forces is as valuable and important in defence as they are on offence.
The French did not loose against the German forces based on their tanks being bad they really were not that bad, they lost because they did not understand mobile warfare at that time and their army in general was in shambles.
Armoured (mechanised or mobile) forces used in defence as pillboxes only happen in desperation, usually if outnumbered and mobility is hampered by say air-force or the like, or by incompetent leadership. In defence mobility is as important as it is on offence if you are able to use it. The Russians use mobile and elastic defence to good effect, especially later in the war when they had more and better mechanised units and experience.
In the real world armoured or mechanised units are as valuable on defence as they are on offence... it just is too expensive to use armoured or mechanised units everywhere and you want to concentrate your best troops to overwhelm the opponent where they are weak, that is why armoured mobile forces are so good and why lighter forces are important too. If an army or country could afford to armour all their troops they would, it simply is not economically sound to do that. Obviously there are areas where armoured forces are not suitable, but that is equally true on both offence and defence in that case.


