Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lukins
Gents, with the reign of the guided weapons of todays technology would you like to be in a tank on todays modern battlefield?
|
Yes, cavalry survived the pike, rifle, machine gunb, and ATGM. The simple fac tis armies need the ability to inflict shock through the application of fire power and mobility. To an extent helicopters have taken over the role of light cavalry and harrassers. But you still need the awesome direct fire capabilities a tank provides. Both to help on the attack and on the defence. As advanced as guided weapons have gotten most are still not cost effective and a generation behind. Already the worlds most advanced systems are facing the threat of new types of reactive armor and active counter-measures systems. Advanbces in armor like advances in weapondry will not stop, this race has existed for thousands of years.
What has stopped is the explosive growth of a tanks weight. As new armors offer weight reductions armor levels will increase, weight levels will not decrese. Sure you could make a palstic tank tha thad the protection of an Abrams fopr the weight of T-72 but why when for the same weight your logistics system is already set up for and bridges and rail tunnels already caapble of accomadating you could make a tank with an Abrams weight but 25% better protected?