Should Europe Rebuild Tank Forces?

[W.G.Ewald]

And we can't forget about Armata in Russia.
It will be first IV gen tank whit operational status in whole world.

Armata will face airborne threat, such as A-10, like any other tank.

 

[Bhadra]

Europe 2015

Look at the population size between 20 - 30 . Where are the people to fight tank wars ?? Further ahead beyong 2015, look at the shrinking base !!

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Where is the manpower to man the tanks?

Unless you wish to employ all above 60 as crew ??

Younger ones wouldn't even make a full division !!

Gone are the days of tanks in Europe !!

Operations Desert Storm may have been the last tank battles of that type: Medina Ridge and 73 Easting.

Desert Storm Pictures Page Three

 

[Bhadra]

Operations Desert Storm may have been the last tank battles of that type: Medina Ridge and 73 Easting.

Desert Storm Pictures Page Three

Oh, USA has a healthy population base of young and capable of being soldiers. But not Europe !!

 

[Damian]

You don't know situation in Europe, you don't live here, but you as allways are smart ass.

How typical this is for armchair generals that never served in army... and before you answer, yeah, I'm going to army, waiting to my turn for basic course.

In fact today there is more young people wanting to serve in army than there is free places for them in our structures (both active and reserve). In fact the whole system needs to be redesigned and most likely we will need to increase in manpower size our armed forces.

Currently it seems that best would be to increase size of Polish armed forces from 120,000 to 250,000 for active component, and there is huge discussion about reserves and recreating Territorial Army/Defence.

As I said, paradigm of security in Europe changes, we now again face conventional threat, and must adjust accordingly. This means more spending and most likely increasing size of armed forces.

Currently there is also discussion about budget size. Poland for example currently spend 1,95% GDP for defence, slightly below NATO advised 2% GDP, and there are rumors that we might actually increase budget to 2% or more if nececary.

Also as I said, our biggest army modernization programs, are focused around armored vehicles, including tanks.

Other nations are also slowly changing their attitude.

What is funny, Netherlands, they sold all their tanks, but now their army actually wants to have new tanks! It is pefect example of how stupidity of politicians, actually increase costs not decrease them, because at some point they will need to purchase new tanks, and new tanks will cost more than modernization of existing vehicles.

 

[rock127]

Europe 2015

Look at the population size between 20 - 30 . Where are the people to fight tank wars ?? Further ahead beyong 2015, look at the shrinking base !!

Also there are more females in Feminist Europe than males.

Europe - Сurrent population of Europe | Sex ratio in Europe

2011 Stats:


Total population: 734 228 971
Males: 353 542 772
Females: 380 686 199

 

[Bhadra]

You don't know situation in Europe, you don't live here, but you as allways are smart ass.

How typical this is for armchair generals that never served in army... and before you answer, yeah, I'm going to army, waiting to my turn for basic course.

In fact today there is more young people wanting to serve in army than there is free places for them in our structures (both active and reserve). In fact the whole system needs to be redesigned and most likely we will need to increase in manpower size our armed forces.

Currently it seems that best would be to increase size of Polish armed forces from 120,000 to 250,000 for active component, and there is huge discussion about reserves and recreating Territorial Army/Defence.

As I said, paradigm of security in Europe changes, we now again face conventional threat, and must adjust accordingly. This means more spending and most likely increasing size of armed forces.

Currently there is also discussion about budget size. Poland for example currently spend 1,95% GDP for defence, slightly below NATO advised 2% GDP, and there are rumors that we might actually increase budget to 2% or more if nececary.

Also as I said, our biggest army modernization programs, are focused around armored vehicles, including tanks.

Other nations are also slowly changing their attitude.

What is funny, Netherlands, they sold all their tanks, but now their army actually wants to have new tanks! It is pefect example of how stupidity of politicians, actually increase costs not decrease them, because at some point they will need to purchase new tanks, and new tanks will cost more than modernization of existing vehicles.

Mr Smart Ass, Can you tell me how many young men were under Arms in the Second world war from Europe or for that matter Poland ?
Can you muster that essential numbers to reach even Dnieper ?

Forget Moscow !!

 

[Bhadra]

@Damian

Peak strength of Armed Forces WWII :
USSR - 12.5 million Allies
USA - 12.364 million Allies
Germany - 10 million Axis
Japan - 6.095 million Axis
France - 5 million - but knocked out of the war in six weeks 1940
China - 5 million Allies
UK - 4.683 million Allies
Italy - 4.5 million Axis - knocked out of the war in mid 1943
India - 2.15 million - Fought with Great Britain
Poland - 1 million - knocked out of the war in 1939
Canada - 780,000 Allies
Australia - 680,000 Allies
Yugoslavia - 500,000 Occupied but some fought as an insurgency against the Germans and some fought with the Germans - Croatians
Romania - 600,000 - Fought on German side
Bulgaria - 450,000 - Fought on German side
Hungary - 350,000 - Fought on German side
+ 20 to 30 other countries with smaller numbers contribute

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090714190811AAKYgRa


And you are giving that crap of yours !!

Increasing polish Army from from 120,000 to 250,000 !!

Ha Ha Ha ...
And dreaming of reaching Moscow !!

 

[Damian]

Mr Smart Ass, Can you tell me how many young men were under Arms in the Second world war from Europe or for that matter Poland ?
Can you muster that essential numbers to reach even Dnieper ?

Forget Moscow !!

This is completely idiotic, what have WWII to current situation? Why we would ever want to reach Dnepr river or Moscow?

Are you people there completely incapable to understand that our doctrine, I mean NATO members is purely defensive? It is based on collective defence, and defence only. Doctrine is tailored to protect our terrotories and any offensive actions are ment to be only for eventually regaining lost territory, not to invade someone.

----, why people around the world are incapable to understand such simple things? My misantopia is growing again.

Oh and by the way smart ass, Poland currently have population of 38 mln people, excluding emigrants in EU member states and huge Polonia like in USA.

This 38 mln people is enough to give 250,000 young male and females for armed forces that are fit to serve. In fact it is more a problem of politicians and budget than manpower avaiable in country.

 

[militarysta]

Maybe back to the tanks?

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

From various sources lets take an example of Anti tank weapon a common one

The Soviets were not the only modern army to worry about the effectiveness of the RPG. South African and Namibian forces fighting Angolan guerrillas in Namibia during the 1980s learned to give the RPG a wide berth. Their standard drill, when traveling in an armored personnel carrier and encountering Angolan guerrillas with an RPG, was to immediately begin driving around the guerrillas in an ever-widening circle. They would fire into the circle with automatic weapons. The moving vehicle was harder for the guerrilla RPG gunner to hit and the soldiers were able to exploit their mobility and firepower. Dismounting troops to advance on guerrillas while the stationary personnel carrier provides supporting fire is a good way to lose the carrier.

Tanks and other ground combat vehicles need to be protected against the RPG. Sandbagging and mounting reactive armor were reasonable solutions until the introduction of the anti-reactive armor PG-7VR tandem round. The best short-term solution appears to be fitting combat vehicles with a light-weight stand-off screen. When the Soviets moved through heavy vegetation in Afghanistan, they would sometimes walk a wall of high-explosive fragmentation rounds in front of the vehicles to keep the RPG gunners at bay--or at least to ruin their aim. This is an expensive option in terms of artillery or mortar rounds, but it does work.

When practical, the best way to protect ground vehicles from the RPG is to put infantry well forward of the vehicles to find and destroy the RPG gunners. Combat vehicles should stay out of urban areas or areas dominated by overwatching terrain and tall trees until the infantry has cleared and posted the area. Moving under smoke or at night also helps protect ground vehicles. Convoys should have a security escort, smoke laying capability and helicopter coverage. All vehicle drivers should have several smoke grenades.

There are several ways to protect helicopters from the RPG:

-Vary the take-off and landing directions from the helipads.
-Never fly a "race-track" or other identifiable pattern.
-Never follow streets, roads, canyons or river lines for any length.
-Always allow 500 meters between the helicopter and its wingman. This allows the wingman full range of his weaponry to engage RPG gunners.
-Vary the flight tactics and flying pattern, sometimes flying with two helicopters and sometimes with three.
-Prep a LZ with an over-pressure system (fuel-air) before landing.
-Use pathfinders on any LZ before committing the full landing force.
-Never set patterns by time, formation or sequence of events.

 

[militarysta]

Tanks and other ground combat vehicles need to be protected against the RPG. Sandbagging and mounting reactive armor were reasonable solutions until the introduction of the anti-reactive armor PG-7VR tandem round. The best short-term solution appears to be fitting combat vehicles with a light-weight stand-off screen. When the Soviets moved through heavy vegetation in Afghanistan, they would sometimes walk a wall of high-explosive fragmentation rounds in front of the vehicles to keep the RPG gunners at bay--or at least to ruin their aim. This is an expensive option in terms of artillery or mortar rounds, but it does work.

In fact modern tanks are almoust immune against very modern RPGs from it's +/30 degree from turret and +/-20 from hull longitiudal axis.

The problem is in more guerilla fight and uncenventional warfare when angle hit is closer to 90. degree and RPG is aiming mostly in hull and turret sides.
They are some good solutions to protect agais this: heavy ERA (Knive/Duplet, IBD modules, etc) or APS - like Trophy, AMAP-ADS, Arena II, Drozd II, KAPS, etc.

In fact protected Merkava's Mk.IVM whit Meil Raucha (Windbreaker aka Trophy) start new era in modern tank armour -when armour is active against ATGM/RPGs. In at least 3 confirmed acident Trophy had destroyed ATGM/granade and aimed enemy lunched position.
In fact it's future of the tank armour: heavy armour to protect against KE and active systems to protect against CE munition.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

In fact modern tanks are almoust immune against very modern RPGs from it's +/30 degree from turret and +/-20 from hull longitiudal axis.

The problem is in more guerilla fight and uncenventional warfare when angle hit is closer to 90. degree and RPG is aiming mostly in hull and turret sides.
They are some good solutions to protect agais this: heavy ERA (Knive/Duplet, IBD modules, etc) or APS - like Trophy, AMAP-ADS, Arena II, Drozd II, KAPS, etc.

In fact protected Merkava's Mk.IVM whit Meil Raucha (Windbreaker aka Trophy) start new era in modern tank armour -when armour is active against ATGM/RPGs. In at least 3 confirmed acident Trophy had destroyed ATGM/granade and aimed enemy lunched position.
In fact it's future of the tank armour: heavy armour to protect against KE and active systems to protect against CE munition.

According to Merkava tank program administration figures, missiles penetrated 22 tanks, killing 23 crewmen. The missiles in these cases were heavy Russian-made RPG 29, Kornet E, Metis-M, and Concourse missiles, used by Hizbullah. These are tandem missiles, with a double warhead that can penetrate the Merkava's reactive armor and steel plates 70-90 cm thick.

Tests conducted on the damaged tanks indicated that Hizbullah had full information needed to identify the Merkava's weak spots.

18 of the damaged tanks were the most modern Merkava Mark IV. Eight of the tanks were still serviceable, despite being hit.

The Merkava tank program administration said five of the damaged tanks cannot be returned to service, including two Merkava Mark II and one Mark III. The two tanks damaged by roadside bombs were a Mark II and Mark IV, which will not be returned to operational use. The Mark IV tank was equipped with underside armor, which prevented a large number of casualties among its seven-man crew; only the one soldier was killed.

18 of the 23 crewmen killed were in five tanks hit, half of them in clashes in Wadi Salouki. The Merkava tank program administration noted that when counting the tank casualties, it should be taken into account that some of the tanks hit were carrying additional troops in addition to their four-man crews, which increased the potential casualties.
The tanks protected 90% of the soldiers they were carrying.

more info

Globes English - Defense establishment favors Rafael tank protection system

But coming back to European theater and from the arguments of some members i still believe Tank has a future and europe needs to upgrade and build more because they were not close to what the Israelite can deploy today in the battle fields

 

[militarysta]

BTW: consider next fact in ace of the ATGMs.

There is some faliture factor -in ace first Kornet to Amirates it was 20%(!) in first polish Spike ATGM it was 14%(!) now it is 1,5-3%.

So for example - from polish 2675 spike atgms circa 80 will broke down after take-off. Aim error in case very modern Spike FCS is equal to circa 25% only (in case older II gen ATGMS (Milan, TOW, Konkurs, etc circa 30-40% in shooting to moving targets...) so at least 650 atgm's will not hit targets.
Next problem is warhed efectivenss. In 2006 in Lebanon extremly good Kornet whit 1100mm RHA penetration wher hits Merkava Mk.IV wchich is not the best protected tank, it's good protected but not as good as M1A2 or Leopard-2A5 or T-90A not even mentioned Oplot-M. In sucht scenario Kornets have only 33% perdforations after hit. So only 1/3 hits where sucesfull and ended by armour perforation.
In case Spike we have top-attack mode and modern doubkle warhed whit 750-800mm RHA penetration. But some tanks (like rusian ones) have ERA tiles on the top. There are some mishits on turret top too -when ATGM hit armour block or basked on turret sides or rear...
In fact even if 60% of those ATGM will penetrate armour it will be extremly good scenario...
so in fakt those 2675 atgms can destroyed only 45% at least - so 1160 targets.
Oh really?
Unfortunatly not...
Poland have circa 264 Spike lunchers. How many of them will survive firs firefight? Artilery attack? Air attack? Of course not all of them.
So in fact only in best scenario 45% atgms will destroy/damage targets from luncher number wchich survive long enought...

In case clasic ATGMs (Kornet, Konkurs, Metis, TOW-2, Milan, HJ-8) we have more then 3%v faliture factor, circa 30-40% aim error cause by operator(soilder error) + in the best case (Kornet) only 33% efectivenss after hit modern tank (or even less).
So in fact only 25-34% of lunched ATGMS will demage/destroyed tanks.
From of course survived lunchers number...waht is not obvious...

 

[militarysta]

ATank has a future and europe needs to upgrade and build more because they were not close to what the Israelite can deploy today in the battle fields[/B]

ROTFL
Merkava myth is still present as I see

Sorry it's more then funny when we consider that modern armour was able in Israeli almoust 20 yers after NATO countries

read this topis:
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39268&page=1
some users are present here

 

[militarysta]

According to Merkava tank program administration figures, missiles penetrated 22 tanks, killing 23 crewmen. The missiles in these cases were heavy Russian-made RPG 29, Kornet E, Metis-M, and Concourse missiles, used by Hizbullah. These are tandem missiles, with a double warhead that can penetrate the Merkava's reactive armor and steel plates 70-90 cm thick.

Tests conducted on the damaged tanks indicated that Hizbullah had full information needed to identify the Merkava's weak spots.

18 of the damaged tanks were the most modern Merkava Mark IV. Eight of the tanks were still serviceable, despite being hit.

The Merkava tank program administration said five of the damaged tanks cannot be returned to service, including two Merkava Mark II and one Mark III. The two tanks damaged by roadside bombs were a Mark II and Mark IV, which will not be returned to operational use. The Mark IV tank was equipped with underside armor, which prevented a large number of casualties among its seven-man crew; only the one soldier was killed.

18 of the 23 crewmen killed were in five tanks hit, half of them in clashes in Wadi Salouki. The Merkava tank program administration noted that when counting the tank casualties, it should be taken into account that some of the tanks hit were carrying additional troops in addition to their four-man crews, which increased the potential casualties.
The tanks protected 90% of the soldiers they were carrying.

[

Nice data, but not very accurate

Beter, and more accurate:

Tottal losses:
3x Merkava Mk.2
1x Merkava Mk.3
1x Merkava Mk.4

List of ghit's tank whit Killed In Action (KIA) and Wounded in Action (WIA)
1. Merkava Mk.2 (12.07.2006) IED (4 KIA)
2. Merkava Mk.4 (24.07.2006) ATGM 1 KIA
3. Merkava Mk.4 (24.07.2006) ATGM 1 KIA
4. Merkava Mk.3 (03.08.2006) ATGM 3 KIA
5. Merkava Mk.4 (03.08.2006) ATGM 1 KIA
6. Merkava Mk.2 (08.08.2006) ATGM 2 KIA
7. Merkava Mk.2 (09.08.2006) ATGM 4 KIA (hit in ammo store)
8. Merkava Mk.2 (10.08.2006) ATGM 1 KIA
9. Merkava Mk.3 (10.08.2006) ATGM 1 KIA
10. Merkava Mk.4 (12.08.2006) ATGM 4KIA
11. Merkava Mk.4 (12.08.2006) ATGM 3 KIA
12. Merkava Mk.4 (12.08.2006) ATGM 1 KIA
13. Merkava Mk.3 (12.08.2006) ATGM 1 KIA
14.Merkava Mk.3 (12.08.2006) IED 4 KIA
15. Merkava Mk.3 (13.08.2006) ATGM 1 KIA

In fact only tanks whit more then 2 KIA crew are heavly damage and need factory rebuild.
How many sucht tanks we have?
destoryed by IED:
1x Merkava Mk.2
1x Merkawa Mk.3
destroyed by ATGM:
2x Merkawa Mk.2
1x Merkawa Mk.3
2x Merkawa Mk.4

Generally it give us 3x Merkava Mk.2 (2 by ATGM), 2x Merkava Mk.3 (1 by ATGM), 2x Merkava Mk.4 (ATGM) all 7 tanks
Acually from 50 hit's tanks only in 15 there as perforated armour...
In other way: 15 Merkava tanks have perforated armour by ATGM/RPG, in two lucky tanks there was no KIA and no WIA(!), in 8 tanks we have only 1 (one) KIA form 4 members crews - so bad, but tank able to easy repair, in 5 tanks we had sloughterhouse then more then 2 crew mambers whwre killed or whole crew died. Plus od course destroyed by IED tanks (2)

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

ROTFL
Merkava myth is still present as I see

Sorry it's more then funny when we consider that modern armour was able in Israeli almoust 20 yers after NATO countries

read this topis:
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39268&page=1
some users are present here

No worries :thumb:

Its a never ending battle between protection levels and penetration levels. It has always been this way, and it always will. Even if they are man portable, how many reloads do you figure you could carry?

Well you do have a point. Tanks are invested with much armor only to be dismantled by some dude with a ATGM. The Russians knew about this. That is why they didn't pursue heavy expensive armor like NATO did. They created the SprutSD, 2s31 SP howitzer-mortar, and things like that. Thier T-90 MBT is cheap, and much lighter. The armor vs firepower race is won by firepower. SprutSD is just a mobile or SP 125mm smoothbore gun with light armor, but does it really matter against another tank? It's gun can kill any MBT. The one that fires the first shot usually wins. If it's a direct hit, they always win. SprutSD is a air drop-able SP gun. Much lighter, and uses defensive countermeasures for survivably than armor against a possible MBT encounter. Russians probably on the right track than the West.

The way the Russians pursued their strategy had nothing to do with the threat of ATGMs and everything to do with their theory on how to kill enemy tanks. Cheaper and more numerous overcoming quality, and an emphasis on low profile. How have Soviet tanks fared against Western MBTs? We all know the answer. How have Soviet tanks fared against ATGMs? None the better. Afghanistan showed it, and then Chechnya showed it again and again.

But exported Russian Tanks Have a Different story this is my muddiest point where are they really monkey models

Getting back to the question, there will always be a place for the tank of that there is no doubt but the tank is only as good as the terrain and the available support. If a commander has enough ground troops and air cover he will achieve his objective, unfortunatelly most commanders do not have the required number of troops or air cover, and fewar still tanks so Europe needs more.

 

[Damian]

Its a never ending battle between protection levels and penetration levels. It has always been this way, and it always will.

How do you know that? What if vehicles protection long time ago surpassed penetration capabilities of HEAT warheads?

You know what is the only problem? Weight and bulkness of today armor. But in the future, oh wait untill humanity will be capable to manufacture enough materials like graphene or carbon nanotubes.

Tanks are invested with much armor only to be dismantled by some dude with a ATGM.

As far as I can see, efficency of ATGM's is low, ridiculously low when we compare it to all this hype about them.

The Russians knew about this. That is why they didn't pursue heavy expensive armor like NATO did.

You don't know what you are talking about.

They created the SprutSD, 2s31 SP howitzer-mortar, and things like that.

For airborne troops, you comprehend difference between airborne troop and armor-mechanized units?

Thier T-90 MBT is cheap, and much lighter.

Cheap?! It can cost up to 4 mln USD or more even. M1 tank costs 8 mln USD, which means T-90 is only cheaper by a half, and still offers lower crew survivability, worser FCS and optics as well as lesser firepower due to ammunition and autoloader design.

And weight have nothing to do with protection.

The armor vs firepower race is won by firepower.

Really? And you get to that conclusion by what? Typical amateurish approach.

SprutSD is just a mobile or SP 125mm smoothbore gun with light armor, but does it really matter against another tank? It's gun can kill any MBT. The one that fires the first shot usually wins. If it's a direct hit, they always win. SprutSD is a air drop-able SP gun. Much lighter, and uses defensive countermeasures for survivably than armor against a possible MBT encounter. Russians probably on the right track than the West.

2S25 have no survivability, there are also no countermeassures on this tin can as you imagines. I will be brutally honest with you, you have completely no idea what you are talking about.

MBT have armor thanks to which it have survivability, sure you can destroy it, but by what % margin? What guarantee you have that first shot will destroy enemy MBT?

I can tell you, none, but there is great chance that enemy MBT will survive and will retaliate.

Other thing is that 2S25 have crap not FCS. Did you ever saw optics on that thing and compared them to optics and FCS of a modern MBT?

The way the Russians pursued their strategy had nothing to do with the threat of ATGMs and everything to do with their theory on how to kill enemy tanks. Cheaper and more numerous overcoming quality, and an emphasis on low profile. How have Soviet tanks fared against Western MBTs? We all know the answer. How have Soviet tanks fared against ATGMs? None the better. Afghanistan showed it, and then Chechnya showed it again and again.

Again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Actually their tanks fared preaty well in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Syria, despite a fact that in Afghanistan and Syria are used completely obsolete and old types, and in Chechnya, well Chechnya is far more complex and you people have problems with comprehending simple facts.

But exported Russian Tanks Have a Different story this is my muddiest point where are they really monkey models

Not Russian but Soviet. Do you comprehend this difference? Yes tanks exported by Soviet Union were downgraded compared to the ones used by Soviets themselfs, Russian tanks are not because Russians needs money and are not superpower anymore. So to be competetive on market, they can't downgrade their products, at least too much.

Getting back to the question, there will always be a place for the tank of that there is no doubt but the tank is only as good as the terrain and the available support. If a commander has enough ground troops and air cover he will achieve his objective, unfortunatelly most commanders do not have the required number of troops or air cover, and fewar still tanks so Europe needs more.

Recent analisis from past conflicts come to a shocking conclusion, tanks are effective everywhere they are used, deserts, flat plains, mountains, jungles. And I do not talk here about light tanks, but about heavier medium, heavy or main battle tanks.

Americans analized their past conflicts, as they concluded, if not tanks, they would loose in mountainous terrain of South Korea. In Vietnam tanks were great infantry support in jungles and urban terrain. More recent conflicts? Iraq, tanks perfomed above any expectations during desert and urban warfare. Afghanistan, again, mountains and deserts, tanks performed abov expectations. And we talk here about 60+ tons heavy M1 tanks.

You know what was the secret? A combination of vehicles design (technology), training and motivation of troops operating them. Use of proper tactics, and above all, superior understanding of what is a tank, what is it's purpose, how it should be used, what is his capabilities, and so on.

Most armies around the globe don't know these things, this is why they loose so many tanks. Well, perhaps the truth is, that modern Main Battle Tank, is just very advanced weapon system, suited only for the best funded, best trained, and most motivated armies on this planet that know how to use it, just like a nuclear submarine, a stealth fighter jet or aircraft carrier?

In fact what we actually see by all these decades was decline of light tanks, medium tanks and heavy tanks, in favor of all purpose main battle tanks in their various forms, shapes and weights.

Recent small comeback of light tanks have more to do with need to have some units as a QRF and expeditionary forces that can be rapidly sent via air to the hot zones. But in the end all this air transportability is a myth, even USAF don't have enough C-5's, C-130's and C-17's to rapidly transport entire combat capable brigade.

So there is no need to have a large fleet of light tanks. MBT's are far more reasonable investment, and as we see, more and more nations update their MBT fleets.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

@Damian yes i have no idea it doesn't mean i cant share what i know instead of ridiculing with multiple times you have no idea repetitive period we can discuss this more professionally yes i have limited idea and i am willing to learn and listen and like if you fill in and enough of the sentence no idea no idea hmmm period

 

[Damian]

I am iritated because I writed about this subject many times on this forum, and I become tired repeating myself over and over again.

But I will repeat again:

1) Efficency of ATGM's and RPG's is overestimated.
2) Firepower superiority over protection is a myth.
3) Main Battle Tanks are not obsolete, in fact countless times during each conflict, they prove to be viable asset, and many times are more effective during battle than airforces and artillery.
4) Past and recent conflicts proved that even heavier tanks, perform well in terrain that is considered as not friendly for tanks use, like urban areas, jungles, mountains.
5) The key to MBT's or overall tanks success is how they are advanced, how well trained and motivated are their crews, what tactics are used etc

Simple and understandable.