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.