because all the WW2 games and books are confusing me

the Americans used tanks mainly as mobile support weapons for the infantry. the infantry would call in a tank, and a tank would show up and start blasting. i dont know about the others.

Im under the impression that atleast german tanks of the time were there for the sole purpose to destroy enemy tanks and not so much to act for infantry support, other than the tanks that were specifically desgined for the role.

Well the normal role of a tank is shock action. They can destroy the enemy who hold ground, but the infantry need to actually physically seize and hold the ground. A tank can't "hold" ground. They support each other, in the sense that tanks can advance under fire, infantry cannot (without massive losses). And the Inf can then be fighting force that fills and holds the void that the tank creates. A tank can't hold ground the same way Inf can because they are large targets, most often "above ground" (as opposed to Inf who can be dug in with overhead protection. I'm sure I'll have what I've said contradicted by a tankie, but that's what I've been taught.

A lot of on how the tank was used depended on just what attack was going in. If it was a rapid advance over open ground then the tanks raced on ahead followed by motorised infantry. If it was work in a built up area then they would be together supporting one another. If was a fixed defence then often the infantry and sappers would go in and clear the minefields for the tanks to break through the lines. A lot always depend on just what you expect to happen every little Battle is different in it's own way.

Go to www.lonesentry.com
if you go down they have a long list of tactics, weapons,ect.

uhhhhhhhhhh
why is no one posting stuff anymore

It depends on the army and the type of tank.

For example the Pz IV D was designed for supporting infantry (short barrel gun) whereas the the Panzer IVG 'Special' was a tank killer.

Read How Hitler and the Allies misread the Strategic Truths of WWII.

Brief;
Germans originally designed as crushing penetration, Infantry fills gap. However, they began by operating in columns.
Russians; heavy firepower, back-up for infantry.
French; (now this is interesting because they actually had more modern firepower than the germans at start WWII) Used for back-up, but believed in stationary emplacements.
American; Back-up/Reinforcement especially in assaults.

The use for Tanks that didn't work out so well: Intermixing the tanks and using it as a support for the Infantry, depending on WW1 style fixed lines and trench warfare. The French are the greatest failure story in this regard.

What did work out very well: Massing a giant concentration of tanks and using it to repeatedly cut the enemy line in half and/or outflank them. The Infantry would come in after to secure the ground the Tanks had taken. Ideally, this was mechanized Infantry, deployable almost immediately behind the tanks, but more often than not, the tanks far outran the non-mechanized Infantry.

The Germans got the best of what worked, but not even they were able to fully escape the military tradionalists who were determined that only the Infantry was suitable for the front line, whilst doing everything possible to preserve the role of the horse in modern warfare ...