Is it safer in a tank vs infantry?

>P-47 has entered the chat

user pls

It's the infantry I worry more about, a shaped charge piercing into the crew compartment will gibb me the shittiest death thinkable

Numbers from the The_Chieftain
Next question?

Attached: Chieftain.png (1030x527, 74K)

P-47s were pretty shit at killing tanks, much like pretty much all fighter bombers and dive bombers at the time; their main effect in CAS was supression.
Fighter bombers like the P-47 really shined in air interdiction, where their targets were both highly visible and soft unlike infantry or armor.

What the fuck is DOW?

died of wounds

thx pal

When he tried to match the tanker with the big arm on his hip, big arm on his hiiiiiiip.

Attached: 12389712981112.png (580x522, 250K)

Are you calling me a faggot

What shell had even 5 pounds of TNT? Apart from a few odd vehicles like the KV-2 which wasn't meant for anti tank role anyway.

>number of MG-34s and MG-42s made by Germany
>1,000,000

>number of Pak 40s and Flak 36s made by Germany
>44000

I'm going to go with the tank.

Attached: 1522175663262.jpg (4057x2840, 1.39M)

>big arms
god damn it user

Attached: fccd68826047d01d955d7796e9513d16.jpg (800x1536, 82K)

yes faggot

Infantry is dramatically worse because of mortars. Extremely common and effective at turning many kinds of cover (most obviously woods) into just more shrapnel, and the most flexible fire support in the war. The only things they struggled with were concrete bunkers, except the US ones because they developed a heavy mortar round with something like triple the HE. Looking at Soviet mortars, medium and heavy ones had just enough range to shoot from one end of a regiment to the other regardless of position. So they'd be scattered like in any other army, but run wires to each other and the observers. If any of the observers said the Russian equivalent of broken arrow, the next few seconds would see several hundred rounds of various sizes dumped into the problematic area. Germany did something similar in the last few months in NW Europe--they would barely staff the front line with the worst soldiers, and when hit by anything worse than a stiff breeze the mortars behind them would dump feverishly into their positions. Britain had to invent counter-mortar radar because over 80% of their losses during this time were mortar related, and they had too much of a manpower crisis to tough it out.

As far as I know the survival rate of tank crews in wwii was higher than the average infantryman, at least for the US. That's in spite of the (potentially overblown) reputation of the Sherman for offering poor crew protection.

In a WWIII scenario it may be more difficult to say. On one hand modern mbts have proven very survivable vs infantry anti-tank weapons, such as CR2 surviving multiple RPG hits and only suffering minor damage when an RPG-29 penetrated the lower plate. I think a tank would be much less vulnerable to IEDs than a humvee as well, and IEDs are the biggest killer of infantry to my knowledge (although this isn't necessarily going to hold up in wwIII). Compartmentalisation of ammo/fuel potentially allows improved crew survival, and NATO tanks tend to be relatively large and easy to get in/out of. On the other hand arial threats are probably greater to tanks nowadays, with AGMs being prevalent on helicopters. That said, if one side had air superiority and employed their tanks properly I would expect the chances of survival to be better than infantry just as it was in WWII.

>5-25 lbs of tnt from and aphe
the only "tank" gun with even 5lbs of TNT filling was the SU-100Y, and that's because it had a fucking naval cannon

>anti-tank guns were the only things the germans had to engage tanks
>*laughs is panzergrenadier*
By the 1942 most purpose built anti-tank guns used by the Allies and Axis were outdated because of advancements in armor and tank design. The Germans had a pretty effective anti-tank tactics used by their infantry on the western and eastern front. Best case you'd hit a mine and loose a track. Worst case, you'd get mined then popped by a giggling little shit with a panzerfaust in a nearby foxhole. That or some crazy fuck would run up to the tank and place a satchel charge or a grenade bundel on the engine compartment.

Attached: ricky.jpg (600x803, 65K)

>youtube.com/watch?v=dJEQHTbKA5g
>35,247

Attached: image.jpg (3840x2160, 1.4M)

>youtube.com/watch?v=JX298Aoxdus
>10,975

Attached: image.jpg (688x960, 44K)

Modern MBTs havent met modern atgms and come off well

Attached: kornet leopard 2a4 hit.webm (1280x720, 1.35M)

ITT: retards who think tanks are invulnerable to everything despite half of the stuff on the battlefield being designed to kill them

thinking that a tank is invulnerable because it has a tiny bit of armor is like thinking you're invincible because you put on a plate carrier

also, comparing WW2 tanks and AT weapons to modern stuff is laughable. WW2 AT weapons were so pathetic that they sometimes simply ricocheted off of the armor. modern AT weapons go in one side of the tank and come out the other.

Attached: gettyimages-467623384-1024x1024.jpg (1024x681, 446K)

The Russian D-25T was a howitzer fitted into the IS-2, which fired a 25kg shell with 3.8 kg explosive filler. The 8.8 cm flak gun had only 1 kg of explosive, for comparison.

APS might help the surbabability of tanks though. Hopefully this means we'll go back to fuck off big anti tank guns on the battlefield again.

>the things that can penetrate you will make you have the absolute worst day imaginable.
OwO

>retards who think tanks are invulnerable to everything despite half of the stuff on the battlefield being designed to kill them
the question was asked whether it was safer to be in a tank or in the infantry. nobody has posited that tanks are invulnerable. if your argument consist of posting pictures of knocked out tanks and stating that weapons exist which can destroy them, hold on while i post dead bodies and remind you that every single weapon can kill the infantryman.

retards indeed.

>WW2 AT weapons were so pathetic that they sometimes simply ricocheted off of the armor.
That's the point when I realized that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

No u. US bazooka fuses malf'd over 1/3 of the time, resulting in crude HESH effects instead of HEAT.

Infantry don't do to well against ATGMs either.

Attached: ATGM use on Infantry.webm (1280x720, 1.94M)

Tankers have measurably higher survivability......
in the West.