I would argue that AT launchers do overperform a bit in a realistic sense - their post pen damage being often higher than real AT guns is kinda ridiculous, not to mention that something like a Panzerschreck would usually require a team to operate, while a Panzerfaust is a fire and forget weapon that can’t be reloaded - I doubt a single soldier could carry more than one and still be effective as a rifleman.
Still, good AT weapons prevent Tankers from being overly aggressive, which is a good thing.
They constantly complain about grey zone campers but the moment you want to promote an aggressive playstyle for tanks, they tell you to get gud and camp in the greyzone instead of allowing tanks to move in.
Tanks should be allowed to move in as some are actually pretty effective while doing that. But also should be encouraged to do so.
Not really, there is a distinct difference to be had there, not to mention you completely disregarded the rest of his point.
As for what you said, actually no, it was surprisingly common for tanks to both capture and fortify the positions they took, often without infantry support due to the withering effects of massed artillery fire.
Ignoring the likes of assault guns, its very common in a lot of WW2 era strategy to lead with the tanks in the front. I say this because I dont quite get your objection, it fits thematically, historically and from a gameplay perspective.
Tankers can already captured points: All you need to do is jump out of your tank and capture like everybody else. I do this from time to time when the conditions are right. Otherwise, I stay off the points—too many crazies out there with antitank gear.