Yes, they did. Not as much as you might think, however. Early tanks were slow, prone to mechanical breakdown, and there was no tactical doctrine on how to best employ them.
they help people explode things
armoured tanks?
It made the war a mobile battle field!
Panzer=Armor. Therefore your question is asking "what impact did armor have in WWII?" Armor=Tanks=Panzer was simply an evolution process. Before tanks, men fought USING HORSES. In WWII every combatant nation (the smart ones) exchanged their HORSES for tanks! All combatants in WWII had tanks (panzers, armor); the USSR had T34 medium tanks; the US used M3 Stuarts & Lees; the French & Italians used Renaults and Fiat tanks; Japan had Type 97 medium & Type 95 light tanks; Germany had Mk I thru 7's. Just part of the evolution of mankind...horses to tanks, swords to rifles!
The planes that crashed into the towers had full fuel tanks when at the time of impact.
The troops were not trained to use tanks and tanks just made them able to get over barbwire more like a powerful van not the killing machine it is seen as today
The troops were not trained to use tanks and tanks just made them able to get over barbwire more like a powerful van not the killing machine it is seen as today
Just part of the natural evolution of modern warfare. Not that big of deal actually, the French tanks in France in 1940 were actually better than the German tanks that conquered them in 1940. The men behind the machines made the difference...not the tanks. The Russian T34 was better than most German panzers in WWII. So what was the German panzers impact on the war? Males just love anything German, no particular reason, just cool stuff.
Japan left some Type 95 light tanks there after they left. The North Vietnamese Army used some of those for their own Army.
600 tanks
janapneese tanks were weak compared to the russains and Americans
The infantrymen benefited most from tanks. Tanks and Artillery support the infantrymen.