Why were tanks good in WWII?

Question

What good things did tanks do in World War II?

Answer 1

Tanks are great weaponry,I was a tanker during part of my time in the Army (1966 -1969 ) the we had the M1-A1 these tanks have a 7.62mm machine gun and a .50 caliber machine gun for the tank commander and different 105 mm man gun rounds.
HEP (high explosive plastic) was great against buildings and other large targets, HEAT (high explosive anti tank) is used against tanks and other armored vehicles, APDS (armor piercing discarding sabot ) could penetrate 5 tanks, side by side but was a good round to use against bunker positions.
WP (white phosphorus) was used against troops, as long as the phosphorus had oxygen it will continue to burn.

In addition to to the weaponry, tanks have pretty good speed and mobility for a 52 ton vehicle.

Answer 2

Fire and maneuver. Basic needs to be successful in any war and US military doctrine since World War One. (We found out the hard way what happens when you allow yourself to be tied down to one position for too long. )

Tanks provided both. Massive cannon + machine gun firepower and the ability to move it fast to where it was needed with a constant move forward with constant delivery of that power. Also, the constant movement of the tanks made return fire difficult.

Prior to tanks the cannons had to be dragged behind horses or trucks, disconnected, set up and fired. This arrangement caused "spurts" towards the front with periods when the cannon were not in use as they were advanced. Also, since they did not move when they were being used, counter attack against them was relatively simple. Same with crew served machine guns. Move, set up, fire, take down, move, etc. They could not be fired AND moved at the same time.

The German Tiger tank was the best tank of the war but the USA was able to make five Sherman tanks in the time it took the Germans to make one Tiger. When it came to a tank battle, the USA could (and often did) lose four tanks to take out the one Tiger and still come out ahead.

(WW II was not won on the battle field. The USA simply out produced the enemy in the factories and won by a war of attrition.)

Answer 3

Your question is not defined good enough, there was a hugh variety of tanks and purposes made by many different countries at the start of WW2 many were models developed near the end of WW1 and post WW1.

What WW2 did was utilize the development and design of tanks, with the Germans at first leading the way but getting distracted by engineering perfection, they forgot the golden rule of KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) their designs were complicated and required many man hours of work to produce, the Russians went the other way, basic design like the T-34 virtually no crew comforts, crews of small stature were picked to fit the machine as space was cramped.The Allied development was the US Sherman that was basically a simple and practical one, and the US could turn them out quickly to replace losses incurred on the battlefields of Western Europe.The basic use of tanks was to spearhead a way through the enemy defenses and roving the rear area destroying enemy reserves and communications ahead of the infantry. But they also required the use of troops whose specialty was protecting the flanks to stop anti-tank troops from picking the tanks off while at work.

Answer 4

I suppose a pacifist wouldn't consider tanks good, or depending on who used them.

But tanks can do all sorts of handy things - they're resistant to most infantry weapons and usually have some sort of great support weapon - a machine gun mounted in a tank turret is obviously difficult to knock out, and the more successful tank often had artillery-caliber guns - great for blowing up stuff like buildings, infantry positions, gun pits and other tanks.

Answer 5

Tanks protected the allied troops. Tanks also where a big factor in the collapse of the Axis. I suppose that because of the tanks, we were able to liberate France and defeat Germany without nuking them. That would be a good thing!

Answer 6

Tanks are great for warfare; the old tanks in WWII didnt last long on the battlefeild, but the M1A1/M1A2s the US has today are the clostest thing to invincible you can have on the battlefeild.

Answer 7

i might say that the German Panther (aka Panzer V) replaced into the suited because of the fact of its astonishing combination of firepower, mobility and armour. It replaced into the only Axis tank that could desire to compete (or outcompete because it did oftentimes) with the T-34, thankfully for us although German gas and manpower shortages stopped the scary panther from turning around the conflict in overdue 1943 early 1944. i might additionally say that the Panzer IV is yet another tank i might p.c.. for its reliability and its versatility, the chasis replaced into the only German tank to stay in production for the entire conflict and can desire to be made into an splendid tank buster whilst mandatory (like Kursk).

Answer 8

In WW11 The tanks had a lot of operations After D-Day
They opened holes in the hedge rows for the troops to go through. And for protection for small arms fire for the Infantry,
but not for cannon fire. We stayed away from them, becase they would draw their fire.

Answer 9

Killed people.
Black when men fought like men instead of hiding in Mosques or behind woman and children

Answer 10

░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ ☻/︻╦╤─
Il███████████████████]. /▌
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤.. / \