Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Well to be fair anyone that thinks of a tank as a place to hide in doesn't really grasp the basic concept of armored warfare. 
After all tanks are armored fists and you don't hide your fists in a fight. You smash them into your enemies face. (queue Patton theme song)  |
Somewhat true, and somewhat untrue.
The value of tanks lies within "shock effect" and mobility. They must be employed against the enemy's weakest points and then use their mobility to force the enemy into a disadvantageous position. The same is true with any military unit, but tanks are the best performers in open terrain.
August is, however, completely correct about the fallacy of using tanks for protection. A tank must operate as the infantryman does, making maximum use of cover and concealment. In modern armored warfare, the tank that sees first, kills first.
Tanks must be fast, agile, and accurate. Protection is a secondary concern. This is doubly true with the advent of modern artillery-spotting and munitiions, and the increasing sophistication of I-AT weapons. Armor never realy keeps pace with weapons technology, but armor employed in the right place at the right time can win a war in the same way that a heavy cavalry charge into the flank or rear of an enemy line could win a battle.
Tanks are mobile threat incarnate, but they are useless when deployed against a prepared battle line. Even if they manage to break the line, they will suffer heavy losses and they always require a tremendous amount of material support. The best use of armor is to "Hit'em where they ain't" and then consolidate the area that it threatens.
There should be no smashing of armored fists into an enemy's face in a proper campaign. You smash an armored fist into his kidney or spine.