This is an opinion that I’ve held for a long time. Medium tanks, Which are usually opted out of in exchange for other vehicles or units, are actually pretty useful. They are great at offense, having many useful traits that make them fit for the job of a frontline unit. They are also quite versatile, and can be used in combination with many other units. The medium tank is a great unit, at least when used correctly, in combined arms with other units.
Medium tanks are good units to take on the offensive. While their high damage against light armor is only helpful in small cases, as this unit type isn’t used very often, their decent damage when fighting heavily armored or totally unarmored units is good, but might not seem the most useful, as other units may do more damage.
The trick here is that medium tanks have a good balance. Their speed, health and damage are all quite high-not the highest, but still high. Building on this, their cost is not too expensive, especially in comparison with heavy tanks or strategic bombers. This makes them a handsome unit to combat most others on land, without the issue of slowness and cost with heavy tanks, low health and damage with lighter tanks, and acceptable cost to top it off. But one of the greatest strengths of the medium tank is not on its lonesome, but in combination.
The medium tank is best paired with other units, and is great for combined arms. One of its best strengths lie in its balanced stats, which allow it to accompany other units, specifically artillery and motorized infantry, without slowing down stacks. It can serve as a shield, adding large amounts of health to stacks and serving as a defense against armored units. And is great at the offense, dealing large amounts of damage while its high HP keeps stacks in the fight longer. While there are counters to tanks, its versatile ability to merge with other units and not burden them allows it to be protected while protecting other units at the same time.
There are a few drawbacks to the medium tank. First being the fact that it’s an offensive unit. Even if it is on offense most of the time counter attacks mean it might deal less damage to attacking units. But this is usually mitigated most of the time, where it’s fighting other offensive or defensive units which balances things out. Or in the case of say tank destroyers or heavy tanks, it can be used with Motorized infantry and artillery, it’s speed allowing it to outmatch heavy tanks, while the tank destroyers weakness against unarmored units protects the Medium while not weighing down the unarmored unit that’s used with the issue of speed.
Another drawback is less of that, and more of an alternative, that being the light tank. This is because the good light armor damage and extremely high speed of it allows the light tank to seem like an excellent alternative rather than the slower and more expensive medium. And in certain cases, especially while using the Pan-Asian or even allied doctrine, it may be the case that the light it superior to the medium tank. But most of the time, the high damage against light armor of medium tanks can act as a foil against it. Although the medium might be a bit slower, it has higher damage, and a stack using mediums, even in lower number is more likely to defeat one using light tanks.
The medium tank is a strange case. While I do see it used, it it’s not awfully often. This is in contrast to my generous wielding of the unit, often to powerful effect. The medium tank is excellent on the offense and a versatile unit that works well hand in hand with others. When used correctly in conjunction with other forces, the medium tank is arguably the best tank unit in game.
Please log in to post a reply.
Wait wasn't this the thread Carking and I spent hours of our life debating, and eventually resolving? What's the point of reviving it again? If y'all wanna talk about the effectiveness of German armour in WW2 in comparison to Allied/Soviet armour, feel free to, but not on this thread 
Being able to defeat units that rely on AP and Rocket AP en masse, this is achieved by demolishing the light armor shield and plenty of hit points to withstand barrage fire in a violent close combat thanks to heavy armor. If the opponent with his speed advantage decides to do the "hit and run" tactic he can hold with faster units such as light tank, motorized, armored car all at level 4 and wait for the heavy armor to reinforce them to finish. with them in the blink of an eye_Pyth0n_ wrote:
Wait wasn't this the thread Carking and I spent hours of our life debating, and eventually resolving? What's the point of reviving it again? If y'all wanna talk about the effectiveness of German armour in WW2 in comparison to Allied/Soviet armour, feel free to, but not on this thread
Well here we go again-Tlatelolco wrote:
Being able to defeat units that rely on AP and Rocket AP en masse, this is achieved by demolishing the light armor shield and plenty of hit points to withstand barrage fire in a violent close combat thanks to heavy armor. If the opponent with his speed advantage decides to do the "hit and run" tactic he can hold with faster units such as light tank, motorized, armored car all at level 4 and wait for the heavy armor to reinforce them to finish. with them in the blink of an eye_Pyth0n_ wrote:
Wait wasn't this the thread Carking and I spent hours of our life debating, and eventually resolving? What's the point of reviving it again? If y'all wanna talk about the effectiveness of German armour in WW2 in comparison to Allied/Soviet armour, feel free to, but not on this thread
I don't really want to debate this again but hopefully these points are enough to convince you:
), but the concept is the same.
.*PS: Sorry I repliedd late to this thread, haven't been very active on the forum to say the least
The point is Combined Arms:_Pyth0n_ wrote:
Well here we go again-Tlatelolco wrote:
Being able to defeat units that rely on AP and Rocket AP en masse, this is achieved by demolishing the light armor shield and plenty of hit points to withstand barrage fire in a violent close combat thanks to heavy armor. If the opponent with his speed advantage decides to do the "hit and run" tactic he can hold with faster units such as light tank, motorized, armored car all at level 4 and wait for the heavy armor to reinforce them to finish. with them in the blink of an eye_Pyth0n_ wrote:
Wait wasn't this the thread Carking and I spent hours of our life debating, and eventually resolving? What's the point of reviving it again? If y'all wanna talk about the effectiveness of German armour in WW2 in comparison to Allied/Soviet armour, feel free to, but not on this threadI don't really want to debate this again but hopefully these points are enough to convince you:
Of course, I mentioned all these point earlier when debating Carking. I highly suggest you go read them before again stating the same points that he made
- The point of the whole debate is that MTs are not cost-effective. I am not arguing that they are not a good toy to use on the battlefield, they are just not cost effective. For example, it would only take a couple ATs or TDs lvl 2 (or above) and Inf lvl 3 (or above) to defeat MTs, LTs, mot inf, and ACs. Using the battle calc (which I will use numbers to prove once I get my hand on it, which is unavailable for me at the moment), we can presume that a couple units, costing a fraction of the cost for all of the MTs and level 4 ACs, LTs and mot inf.
- Terrain wise, the only place where your troops have the advantage is in plains. I will concede that in plains, your strategy would work. However, only 1/4 of rural provinces are plains; the others being comprised of forests, hills, mountains. Factoring in cities (as they are the only one that carry any weight; there units are produced, industry is mainly located, etc.), the usefulness of such armoured, blitzkrieg tactics are called into question.
- Finally, the main point: the whole point of using strategies I mentioned earlier in the thread (meat shield, artillery, air) is to reduce the number of casualties taken. Even if a unit only suffers a loss of 10% of their HP, it's a waste. Using artillery to bombard enemies, and deterrence forces like meat shields, close combat (melee) is avoided, totally removing any incurred cost. I falsely referred to this as SBDE (must be something I picked up from the CON forum
*PS: Sorry I repliedd late to this thread, haven't been very active on the forum to say the least
Believe it or not, 50% of my army is made up of normal infantry batteries supported by the unarmored artillery branch while the other 40% are armored or motorized batteries and bombers, the remaining 10% are missiles.
40% varies the amount of batteries depending on the doctrine,
komitern =more Armored
Aliade = more Bombers
Axle = more Motorized
The infantry standing alongside the unarmored artillery branch has no disadvantages on any terrain and can be strong enough to stop armored or motorized stacks in close combat, enough health to take a constant AP bomber so it's good for me to fight. with any opponent and I also use missiles with paratroopers because they are essential for air superiority.
As much as I loved this thread, please stop reviving it.. Just read over what was said and let it die, or, even better, make a new thread to discuss all of this!
ok
Thank you. My bad if I came off as harsh.
Please log in to post a reply.
