Char 2C: The Largest (Operational) Tank Ever Made 

Err, wait, did I see a knife as one of the products I could have mailed to me.

Yes infantry is one of the most dangerous threats to a tank. If it gets cornered it only has so many fields of fire you could blow its tracks off you can destroy it in a million ways. A well-placed Molotov cocktail will shut the engine down on an Abrams tank.

@@jonathanperry8331 Not wrong there. At range infantry is generally screwed, but get close, a tank is doomed. Very few tanks carry anti-personnel weapons aside for their coaxial guns. The Abrams does carry canister shells basically turning a 120mm gun into a shotgun and the Challenger tank has a rifled barrel, so can use a wide range of munitions. In any event, the standard APDSFS round used by most tanks are basically useless against infantry. It will turn a guy into paste if he gets hit, but unless his entire squad is lined up behind him, the rest of his squad can plant an explosive charge no problem.

@@chaosreaver3597 I agree especially in urban environments. People can shoot down at you hit your intake for your engine or track you you can't turn your gun all the way. Tanks don't operate in a vacuum. Your enemy is also doesn't really like to travel around in the open like a video game unless you're in iraq or something like that where it's just desert

Have you done a video of "the kill dozer"? Noone died but basically a guy in America welded armor all over a massive bulldozer and destroyed businesses of politicians he felt wronged him.

underrated comment

Ah, a man of culture.

German engineer: *calmly taking notes*

German Panzer VIII _"Maus"_ has entered the chat... Both French Engineers: _"[ˌsäkrā ˈblə]"_

1/3rd of French soldiers sitting in the Maginot. Napoleon said an army in a fort is already beaten.

Russians after 1940: So we have to send infantry with the tanks to support them? YES TOVARISH!

thankfully the tanks of the time did not have ballistic radars, on a range I was very good "antitank weapons" but I'd ditch them and run if I ran into a tank in a fight. There is nothing to do as an infantry soldier against a modern tank with reactive armor, ballistic radar and autofire, you need a plane, chopper or artillery to do anything serious to it. But in 1939/40 we made do with koskenkorva bottles filled with gasoline and tar mostly, but that won't work again.

@victor bruun heh, it was payback for him having bombers over Helsinki claiming the bombs were bread. Like the "bread" that blew up my grandfathers school. We do not forget or forgive.

@@noth606 the ugly truth was that Stalin and his cronies simply wanted Finland to extend their already immensely enormous country thinking that it would have been a picnic but this country showed the world what they did giving a real bloody nose the Russians. Heroes indeed .....

that's all we had!

This doctrine exist since the tank exist. The first tanks could not operate without infantry protecting them. In World War II the need for infantry to protect the tanks was the reason why they developed "Schützenpanzer" (Sd.Kfz. 251). The only who used tanks without infantry support were the soviets, an Russia today... 😒

Depends on the tank. Lots of tanks were made specifically to fight infantry, and nothing else. Basically any interwar tank this applies to. Tanks like the Russian T-35 with 5 turrets on it. A tank is vulnerable to infantry due to limited firing angles, and limited vision. That doesn't apply to early interwar tanks. Only to ww2 and newer designs.

Modern APCs and Small armoured vehicles actually have remote/ automatic weapon systems on the top and can target and mitigate incoming threats in urban environments, pretty cool

Glass bottle + any flammable liquid > tank

The Russians lost a lot of tanks in tank only units in WW2due to various reasons from hubris to just not enough transport vehicles to carry the supporting troops. That said the Nazi did pioneered the mixed unit tactic copied and used by most armies today . There are lots of ways to counteract a tank : - Artillery - Attack helicopters - Infantry with the correct anti-tank gear, although the previous two are preferable since usually you ether need some kind of RPG or getting close and personal with a tank which may carry flamethrowers, heavy machine gun and is supported by infantry.

Now modern day tanks are kind of in a blurry era. On one hand they have, ERA, 360 degrees of coax MG coverage (bye bye any infantry), APS (soon to be widely used) for missiles, and ballistic trackers. On the other hand, some cant even fit through a street or collapse bridges under their weight. So yes and no. Infantry, in a fair fight with a tank, will never win. Problem is infantry doesn't need to fight fair and don't get encumbered by terrain.

😆😆😆😆😆

“You may fire when ready”

The irony. They both ended up exploding from the inside.

_That's no moon -- that's a space sta...no, wait, that's a tank...._ 😊😊😊

Fire at will commander.

🤨

Dammit, you beat me to the punch.

The TempleOS of tanks.

There are several videos about it.

A true legend.

Yeah, tanks are great but with good placement the Phalanx wins against the tank every time.

Well, you don't want to use them to assault a tank in WW1 so much. Infantry-portable anti-tank weapons weren't much of a thing when the tank had after all just been introduced.

The Turks were made aware of the same lesson in Syria with their Leopard 2A4's that still used the '80s armor. Infantry proved to be an even greater threat with modern ATGM at their disposal in that scenario. Therefore, remember, if you do have to send tanks into urban environments, have your own infantry there to cover your flanks.

Certainly. Almost every tank designed has a fatal flaw when considering flanking attacks. Ever since tank-killing weapons became man-portable, their days on the battlefield have been numbered. And both tanks and infantry are vulnerable to BVR air strikes.

AFV's & IFV's are going to be around for a very long time yet; because A vunerability to something doesn't = being redundant. Under that logic Infantry are obsolete because they're vunerable to... basically everything. (bullets, grenades, mines, IED's, caltrops, pitfalls, artillery fragments, anything CBRN, explosion's blast pressure & much more; take your pick) Combined Arms means Infantry & Vehicles *have* to work together to be effective, and complement each other very well.

@@jimtaylor294 And considering space is the new high ground satellite tech has to be factored into that also. I would be a pretty bad day to be on the receiving end of a lump of tungsten dropped from a thousand km up at near orbital speeds, ouch.

@@anydaynow01 While it sounds nice, such a system would not be as good as guided munitions fired from artillery, planes, ships or vehicles. I think drone swarms would be something we seem much earlier than the "rods of gods".

It is pretty amazing and can really change the game, unlike the stupid ship

And in War Thunder now

However power to weight ratio is measured in hp per ton is the most important factor of getting a tank to move

The main reason a lot of post-WW1tanks weren't fast was because they weren't designed to go fast nor were they intended to ever go fast. Why was that? It was because they were designed to be Infantry Support Tanks and therefor only needed to go as fast as the advancing infantry.

Old road engines like the case 150 had only, well, 150 horsepower, but they had INCREDIBLY high torque

HP is very important, HP = Torque X RPM

Absolutely. Infantry nor armor can really afford to separate especially in urban areas

"Please Mr. Tank, don't come after me in this city..." Brer Infantry

people really dont understand how blind you are in a tank.

@@nickvanachthoven7252 At least pre modern tanks. They typically have a suite of cameras and other sensors now.

@@garretth8224 all can be blinded by wild machinegun fire to kill the cameras

Pretty much. That's why a 550HP Jaguar XJ220 will trounce a 750HP Pagani Zonda (and did; twice)... because the Jag has just over 330 LB/FT of torque, and thus a 0-60MPH of 3.5 seconds (3.2 on one variant).

Lol nm of torque

@@jimtaylor294 750hp might have been too much for the rear tyres for such a relatively lightweight car, hence the slower 0-100kph run, but above 100kph it'll destroy the Jaguar. Having power alone does not necessarily translate to speed if the traction isn't there.

^ The XJ220's 3.5L V6 was capable of producing over 700HP actually; it just wasn't needed to reach 223mph (or 230mph, depending on variant). As for longer distance; unlikely. The Jag was fast to post-60mph speeds too.

Yeah it's pretty amazing what "only" 300 to 400kW can do in the tractor of a road train, some of the newer big engines are only doing about 500 kW but putting out over 3000 N m these days, and that's not even factoring in the gearing effects of the transmission!

oh yes the javelin and other AAGM's, the best anti tank rocket ever made in 1940, totaly historicaly accurate.

Yeah it would be pretty nice to hear the N m of the variants. I imagine those horsepower number were at something silly like 1000 rpm and way more torque!

A sequel which is barely better than the original

Ummmmmmm send pics

@@GradeEhCanadian please don’t! Well, maybe of Stevie…

Wishing a smooth recovery

Yeah I hope the Mosquito makes it to at least a Sideproject, but I would consider it Megaproject worthy!

thank you.

4000 ft lb after the final gear drive would be a low number in reality. its prob 5x that

HP = Torque x RPM. HP is very important because it defines how quickly the engine can do work. Torque is basically how strong each 1 RPM is

The French won the war. No French no victory.

@@jamiegallagher1644 I think you have been snorting to much garlic, pull over your 2cv and have a nap...zzzzz

@@jamiegallagher1644 you are delusional LOL

The French lost hard and had to be bailed out by Britain and her colonial children, but due to De Gaulle's collossal ingratitude the French *believe* they liberated themselves... and they wonder why we and the germans alike laugh at them.

@@jimtaylor294 The British army got totally ruined at the start of WW2, they did just as bad as the french and GB only survived thanks to the US. So I wouldn’t boast too much. Also without the efforts of the french resistance, there’s a good chance Overlord would have failed.

Its a terrifying thing to have as well

If they have anything whatsoever that can crack the armor or disable the thing, that's basically a dead tank. At least back during the first and second world wars.

We are in ww2 not in modern warfare

What are you some 9 year old PubG player?

@@tusharbhat2367 and what are you, some 15 year old goober that thinks he’s a bad ass? People can suggest ideas for new videos in the comment section, as the host frequently says. You don’t like my suggestion, butt out and don’t read about it.

I hate that rifle and I hate you

Not sure what’s with all the hate for the Mosin. Easily one of the most famous bolt action rifles around, I mean if it’s been around for about 130 years and is still in use today, that’s definitely worth some credit

That rifle was basically the AK-47 before it was invented. I only favour it less than the Lee-Enfield bolt-action because I'm British. It was used by so many countries during world war II. It was even standard issue untill the 60's in many armies.

Nothing unusual for a petrol powered heavy tank of the era.

I thought they were to wash down Molotov's bread baskets? (Allegedly) 🤣

Nope, that is a myth started by the Nazis.

Poles didn't attack tanks with cavalry. That is a myth started by the nazi propaganda.

And to add to the other replies... look up how many horses the Germans used.

@@fleetingfootnotes9133 Dude, that blew my mind when I learned just how many horses Germany used throughout WWII, and that the armor and mechanized units were only used at the very tip of the blitz. That and the forward elements of the wehrmacht were essentially cracked out on a kind of meth for the first stages of the blitz.

There was also the gearing he didn't consider, one of the reasons they never went above 20 km/h.

France gave military support to America during the Revolutionary War. Without France America may not even exist.

Sort of; yet at the end of the day three things should be noted: 1. The French had lost the Seven Years War, thus despite helping a rebellion would never be a major force in North-America ever again; unlike the British. 2. The French post-1783 fought a series of wars with the British... and lost hard. They'd remain in the UK's shadow for 140 years thereafter, and never come close to global dominance ever again. France's dream of a Pax Francia... permenantly dashed. 3. Ultimately the fledgling US was still *culturally* closest to their geopolitical mother; thus after losing the war of 1812, they ended up patching up relations with blighty, whom by then were also numero uno in the world; thus the ones to be on good terms with. All that... and there's only so much french snootiness an even part British guy can take ;-) .

Making fun of the French is always great... but in reality their military was top rate for centuries up through the great war. Its mainly ww2 and vietnam that give them a bad reputation.

^ Debatable. 1870 was a humiliation for the French, and a sign of how far they'd fallen from their Napoleonic era relevance. WWI saw them perform badly against an opponent with a smaller prewar defence budget, and WWII was even worse. France had lost the race hard, in more ways than one.

@@jimtaylor294 In WW1 the French did better than the English. Nowadays if I’d have to pick someone to hold my back, I’d go for french legionaries, they still know how to operate without extensive support unlike their US and GB counterparts.

Haha, pretty much the opposite of Japanese military logic at the time, good thing they didn't have much in the way of tanks, but those battleships though!

Besides the german system "Panzergrenadier" in DE/AT/CH, no one really uses it. Units are still kept in separate waves with airpower garnished like melted cheese on top. Best example are the IFV doctrines: scoot in, spit boots out, fuck of, shoot from afar and collect whats left. Also none of that happens during a tank battle.

Also, where to put the chiller for the wine...

Intimidation factor 9999

Come and get your Hot Tog!

Cause screw history, right?

It's sad how easily people write off all of French history to perpetuate the "haha french surrender funy" joke that's been overplayed for decades. Get some new material.

"If the Government were placed in charge of the Sahara Desert, they would run out of sand in 5 years." Milton Friedman

@@almyska467 ha, true

Note that the designations on bulldozers by caterpillar indicate the horsepower if multiplied by 10. For example a D6 has 60 horsepower. A D12 had 120 horsepower. They won't move very fast, but they can move mountains.

Tourque is power output per revolution. You dont really need tourque to move anything either. You can have an engine with 10Nm of tourque spinning at 12000RPM, outputting and just reduce the gearing to multiply the per revolution power output. The practical limiting factor is friction in the reduction gearing itself.

@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Torque is measured at the wheels. What you described is a gear reduction from a high speed motor to a low speed at the wheels. This increasing torque at the wheels while reducing the speed. It's why a caterpillar D4 (40HP) can move earth, Albert very slowly.

@@johnmcleodvii While what you said is correct tourque is absolutely not measured at the wheels. If a vheicle has a tourqe statistic availible for it it will always be measured at the engine driveshaft.

"Advance; rearwards"

As opposed to the other side of the land mass where they yelled "Banzai" when cornered! It's crazy how fighting philosophies were so different between nations at that time period.

@@anydaynow01 Aye. At least the IJA had courage; misplaced at times, but they had it.

Japanese were like "If I am going down I am going to take as many of you with me. BANZAI!" French: We can disrupt our enemy by making them build, supply and guard a large number of POW camps. Hooray! We kinda somewhat maybe helped with the war effort.

@@anydaynow01 Don’t forget the meth.

To be fair, a modern M1 Abrams has around 500 gallons in the tank and only goes about 120 miles cross country. Which is about 1/4 MPG as well.

@@rodh1404 Yes, but it can drive ten times as fast doin it!

All it's missing is a pop out Waving white flag of surrender.

Also funny because french made rotating turret which all tanks use today

@@MistaTofMaine But, they insisted in making them too small to hold a gunner and or loader so the poor overworked commander had to do all which kept his attention away from little tasks like looking for targets, enemy infantry and guiding the driver, who in most tanks has the least field of view. Oh, yes, the little dome on the turret was not a hatch. It was an observation port. The commander spent much of his time hanging out on the rear of the turret which had a fold down door meant for loading ammo into the tank.

Err nope. The Yamato class was exactly what Japan needed; a Capital Ship that was larger than what the US was likely to build, and thus an overmatch for most likely opponents. Japan's failure to complete more than 2/5ths of the class is the significant bit. (bigger and badder or not; they still needed more than two for a major battle) The Char 2C was just a failure by design, like all the other superheavy designs of the 1910's. The only difference from the others (Flying Elephant, K Wagen, Holt 120 ton Trench Destroyer, etc), was the french lacked the sense to cancel them.

@@jimtaylor294 The Yamato was obsolete the moment it was built. Aircraft carriers were the new masters of the seas and the japanses failed to realised this. This made it even more embaracing is that they were the one to pioner the use of aircraft crarriers. The 2c was built at a time when tanks were still barelly understood and with the level of technology it wasn’t that bad. Its real failure was that trenchwarfares were obsolete when they were finally build.

""The Yamato was obsolete the moment it was built."" Completely false, and a rather cliched myth at that. Considering the Guadacanal campaign alone destroys that tired claim, as it was the USN having superior Battleships in the area that won them the campaign. Due to tribalism and poor intel on the reality of USN ordinance (such as US Torpedoes being nion useless for half of the war), the IJN failed to use their best ships where they could have made a real difference, and only did use them... when the war was already lost. (by 1944 the allies had slaughtered most of the IJN's aircraft with ruthlessly accurate AAA & better fighters; the torpedo issue had been fixed, and the IJN was no longer outnumbered by a handful of Capital Ships, but by dozens) ""Aircraft carriers were the new masters of the seas and the japanses failed to realised this."" Japanese*, and false on both counts. Aircraft Carriers couldn't even conduct 24/7 air operations at this point, and were comically vunerable without excort (as they still are). The Japanese ironically had some of the most fanatical shills for carriers, but were astute enough to know they needed *other* types of Warships too. Despite this Aircraft Carriers had one of the highest loss rates for any ship type in the war, and were *still* an immature asset by the end of it. Only extensive innovation by the British and the US after the fact, kept Carriers from disappearing. Torpedo Bombers were rendered obsolete by the Proximity Fuse however, with the role vanishing from postwar navies by the early 1950's. The laws of physics had relegated air dropped torpedoes against a well armed warship entirely suicidal. ""this made it even more embaracing is that they were the one to pionet the use of aircraft crarriers."" As badly written a statement as it is also false. The British were the first to develop Carriers. The IJN knew this, when in the 1920's they asked to tour HMS Eagle not just once, but three times. It wasn't until the 1930's that the IJN had a comperable Carrier arm, though as WWII would prove, still one riddled with fatal flaws. (minimal armour and poorly protected aviation fuel tanks in particular, that made them burn like a holocaust from relatively minor damage) ""The 2c was built at a time when tanks were still barelly understood and with the level of technology it wasn’t that bad. Its real failure was that trenchwarfares were obsolete when they were finally build."" False on all points. The Char 2C was a demonstrably stupid concept and design when concieved (see how General Pershing had all of his country's counterparts cancelled and why), and *never* had a credible reason for existing at all. Like most French Tanks of WWI, they'd failed entirely to take onboard the lessons of the British (particularly in regard to matching the design to the terrain, which none of the French Tanks did; achieving little but grounding and tipping over in the mud). Trench Warfare would also not entirely disappear with WWI, as fortified positions recessed into the ground have been a feature of many wars since. The Tank simply ended the deadlock of such defences being immovable.

@@jimtaylor294 for ypur first point, Yamato was almsot never used because ot was too vulnerable to air attack and so keep in dock. Every time it was deployed it was either keped back in reserve due to fear of aircraft or repealed by said aircraft. Also it was sink by a massive attack of aircraft in less than two hours. The Yamato was nothing more than a Imperialistic propaganda tool from an naval era that was now over use to gave Japan a false sence of hope that they could win. For your second point, everything on their own is vulnerable, why do you think their is battalion? Tanks on their own are easy prey, infantry on their own are easy prey, artilery on their own are easy prey. The bismarck, despite being the most powerfull battleship when active, was sink because it was alone and attack by aircraft from carriers. And during the pacific war, most battle were fought with heavy aircraft carriers support. Pearl Habbord, Midway The Battle fo the Phillipines and pther major engagement saw heavy usses of those ships. And as of today, what is now the most important ship of a fleet, a battleship or a carrier? For your thrid point, yes the british may have been the first to use carriers, but it was the Japanese that realy show how vital they could be. In the early days of the pacific war they were extremelly succesfull because they were mastered of navalairstrick but then Americans caught up on them so they lost their only advantages. For your third point, british tanks could do things that french tank couldn’t and vice versa. The Renault set the standard tank design for a reason intead of the british Marks. And even if defencive positions are still used, most wars are now far more movile than the trenchwarfares of WW1. Trenches aren’t (or are rarely) used animore because they are impractical, and were already during WW2 and so was the 2c. I’m not saying that the 2c is actually a good tank, but it could have been a good tank in the proper era.like how cavalry used to be majoe players on the battlefield beffore being made obsolet by firearms. Does that make cavalry actually bad? No, but their time is over now.

""Yamato was almsot never used because ot was too vulnerable to air attack"" False, as aforeproven. ""Every time it was deployed it was either keped back in reserve due to fear of aircraft or repealed by said aircraft."" False. At Letye Gulf the ships were not held back in any way; and in Yamato's case attacked Taffy 3 directly. Failure in identifying their opponents though turned what would've been a one-sided slaughter, into a strategic gaff. This was however in 1944, after the sweetest spot for use mentioned. ""Also it was sink by a massive attack of aircraft in less than two hours."" Irrelevant. Over 100 aircraft to sink *one* ship is more of a statement to Yamato's durability than anything else. She wasn't designed to be deployed with such thin support though, rather as part of a balanced taskforce. ""The Yamato was nothing more than a Imperialistic propaganda tool"" False. The Yamato class wasn't even known to most of the Japanese populace, due to the vast disinformation campaign surrounding the ship. It wasn't until after WWII, when the US occupation forces found material meant for Shinano (as a Battleship), that they realized hitherto unsubstantiated rumor was actually fact. ""from an naval era that was now over use to gave Japan a false sense of hope that they could win."" False. The Japanese knew they couldn't outbuild the US. That was the entire point, to build something the US couldn't build. (without massively widening the Panama Canal anyway) ""For your second point, everything on their own is vulnerable, why do you think their is battalion? Tanks on their own are easy prey, infantry on their own are easy prey, artillery on their own are easy prey."" I've already stated this; so good job re' plagarism :P ""The Bismarck, despite being the most powerful battleship when active"" Hahaha... no. The Bismarck class was one of the weakest Battleships whilst active. It couldn't even fight a Revenge class without significant risk of mission killing damage. As it was three rounds from the Prince of Wales ended Bismarck's relevance in Operation Rhine, leaving only a Cruiser fully operable. ""was sink because it was alone and attack by aircraft from carriers."" False. The Home Fleet sank the Bismarck. Aircraft strikes only slowed down a ship already damaged by PoW. ""And during the pacific war, most battle were fought with heavy aircraft carriers support."" And?. The Allies operated Battleships throughout too. The key difference is in surrvivability. One mishap at Midway cost the IJN their entire Carrier force, whilst no similar negative feat re' Battleships was ever achieved by any nation. The Allies lost only one modern Battleship in all of WWI, relative to dozens of Carriers. ""And as of today, what is now the most important ship of a fleet, a battleship or a carrier?"" Neither; it's the SSBN's, with their arsenals of thermonuclear warheads. Carriers have been a sideshow ever since their debut; nice to have for peacekeeping and minor wars, but irrelevant in a first world shooting war. ""yes the british may have been the first to use carriers, but it was the Japanese that realy show how vital they could be."" Again false. Have you even *read* about how it was a British attack on the Italian Navy, that put the idea into Admiral Yamamoto's head? (it's called the Battle of Taranto; look it up... and the WWI raid on the German Fleet the British had planned for 1919) "In the early days of the pacific war they were extremelly succesfull because they were mastered of navalairstrick but then Americans caught up on them so they lost their only advantages." As aforeproven; false. ""british tanks could do things that french tank couldn’t and vice versa."" Name one thing for the latter XD ""The Renault set the standard tank design for a reason"" Except that it didn't. The British had trialed a Tank with a turret back in 1915, but [quite rightly] rejected it, as the terrain of the Western Front made having a turret and its higher center of gravityt a liability. The French repeatedly failed to consider this, and their Tanks proved as useless as one would expect. ""even if defencive positions are still used, most wars are now far more movile than the trenchwarfares of WW1. Trenches aren’t (or are rarely) used animore"" Abysmal spelling aside; your lack of certainty re' defensive warfare today is blatent. ""I’m not saying that the 2c is actually a good tank, but it could have been a good tank in the proper era."" And I'm saying that it was conceptually wrong. It would *never* have been a good tank, in any era. Same thing for the K Wagen, Holt Trench Destroyers and other such nonsense. ""like how cavalry used to be majoe players on the battlefield beffore being made obsolet by firearms."" False. Cavalry were made irrelevant by Armoured Fighting Vehicles, as a Horse can't get through barbed wire, cross a morass at speed, or carry the ordinance to hit the enemy hard when in range of them. Horses remained relevant in support roles into the postwar era however, and in some postings did into the 1970's. ""Does that make cavalry actually bad? No, but their time is over now."" A meaningless point.

That's really just an opinion.

@@owenshebbeare2999 Also a false one; as there was literally nothing original about the Tank. Was it the first designed with a Turret?: No. The Austrians and the British had beaten France to that. Was it good off road?: No. It was hilariously top heavy and almost useless across country. Was it well armed?: No. It had a short gun *or* a MG. You couldn't have both in one Tank. This meant you had to have roughly *Seven* FT's to equal *One* Mark IV Male for firepower. (no wonder the french built so many... they had to XD) Needless to say an FT didn't cost 1/7th of a Mark IV either, nor used 1/7th of the crew... so it's no wonder the UK never bothered seriously testing french Tanks again after WWI, nor the US once they figured out how to build their own.

Panzer means armour so it's armoured tanks.

@@Adjuni All tanks are armored, it's part of the definition. Therefore, saying "armored tank" makes "armored" redundant.

@@bluntcabbage6042 Never said it wasn't. :P Just that panzer doesn't strictly mean tank.

@@bluntcabbage6042 german for tank would be panzerkampfwagen, or armoured fighting vehicle. There really isn't a direct translation for tank but a more modern translation of the word would be "kampfpanzer". Referring to German tanks as Panzer is not actually German but English. So in a way, you would be right to say it's redundant, but not in the German language. My apologies for being this technical.

@@benlex5672 I love the German language for the way they create new words. I hope I’m right, because I love this, I was told once that “ambulance” in German doesn’t have a direct English translation and the closest translation is “sick person wagon”.