[closewith]

> ATGMs are single-shot and 50lbs. They're hard to carry around the battlefield, and the people carrying them aren't carrying much else.

This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.

> Furthermore: Tanks provide 40+ shots upon their call, and tanks easily maneuver around the battlefield at 30mph or faster.

This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.

> To carry similar firepower to a tank, you'll need 40 troops, each carrying a 50lb Javelin into the battlefield.

This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.

> and troops don't have the luxury of sitting in a vehicle (troops carrying 50lb weapons move slower than the armored cars we call "tanks").

This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour.

> No one can deny the shear offensive prowess of the tank on the modern battlefield.

This seems to ignore all those denying the sheer offensive prowess of the tank in the modern world.

> The 120mm tank gun is the only weapon that can repeatedly blow up squads who are hiding inside of a house for example. (It'd be too expensive to use ATGMs vs a house, but its not that expensive to use tank HE-frag or APFSDS rounds).

This seems to ignore the existence of the recoilless rifle (and an uncountable number of mounted weapons).

Overall, I don't believe you have any first-hand insight or understanding of armour or combined arms operations.

[dragontamer]

I don't think any recoilless rifle can match the range, speed, flexibility, or penetration of say the M1147 AMP tank round.

But feel free to tell me which recoilless rifle that is comparable.

[closewith]

> The 120mm tank gun is the only weapon that can repeatedly blow up squads who are hiding inside of a house for example.

This seems to ignore the existence of the recoiless rifle, for example the Carl Gustav 84mm.

Once again, I think you're a waffler with no insight or experience in the topic at hand.

Your comments are so outlandishly ill-informed that I wonder if you're trolling?

[dragontamer]

Anyone can plainly see footage of M1147 AMP and compare it against any footage of the Carl Gustav 84mm and see that the firepower is incomparable.

I don't need experience to see the difference between the two weapons. Speed, penetration, range, accuracy. Completely incomparable.

Tanks were shooting 3000m in the 80s and have probably gotten better. Carl Gustav needs laser guidance for 2000m and even then is still outranged by decades old tanks.

[anakaine]

"I don't need experience"

Sigh.