Artillery or Tanks?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Food and shelter are much more effective at improving the world.

[Wolfmanne]

The OP has a serious case of mental retardation. I shall not justify this statement since his mentally retarded mind would not be able to comprehend the sheer amount of information he would have to process.

Besides, I have Geography homework .

[Wolfmanne]

The OP has a serious case of mental retardation. I shall not justify this statement since his mentally retarded mind would not be able to comprehend the sheer amount of information he would have to process.

Besides, I have Geography homework .

Dammit, if only that was my 1600th post. Well, looks like it's going to be this post. Boo hoo.

Edit: The OP is using Advanced Wars as a source?

[Yankee Empire]

No it's not it HAS A FUCKIGN CANNON therefore it's a Cannon!

split the difference. they're horse artillery.

Essentially what I was contesting, they are the evolution of Cannons and Cavalry.

[Samuraikoku]

Infantry.

STEEL REHN!

[Arabian Desert]

Since you mentioned that rocket artillery is also allowed, I figure that artillery wins in all 4 cases.

Artillery has effective reaches of 15 to 45 km and the mortars up to 21km, while tanks only about 3km and with specialised assisted projectiles up to 8. Tanks move slowly even in flat terrain, about 40 km/h max. Thus a tank would have to brave murderous fire for 20-40 minutes before it comes into range to fire its missiles. Artillery is also much cheaper so for X amount of money you can buy 20-40 times the guns vs the tank guns so there is simply no contest. Also, the artillery side has much bigger guns that can take out a tank with a single shot. Plus Kornet E, wielded by infantry has effective range of 10 km. The tank side gets sliced to pieces long before it can make contact. Before it even comes close enough to fire its gun, each tank would have to duck and weave through a bombardment of 1000+ artillery shells, each of which can take it out, plus tens of thousands of Kornet missiles each of which can disable it. Tough luck. There is no way the tank side has any chance under your scenarious.

Unassisted by air force and artillery the tank is really an obsolete weapon against a first world opponent with top of the line, precise artillery and hundreds of thousands of Kornets.
The tank is the equivalent of a battleship on land, only with weak, short range gun. It is simply obsolete against artillery and Kornets in the 21st century.

And I am a tank gunner; M1A2 is a fantastic piece of equipment. But only works against Third World peasants with crap AT left overs from the Cold War. No one will send Abrams without air and arty support against a first rate artillery force.

Staunton