It is just trolling... and popular misbelife among people with lack of knowledge about military, warfare etc.
This is because they still think that high levels of protection might be achieved only when vehicle reach unacceptable level of weight and size, which is not true.
How many times death of tank was predicted and never happend?
Besides this why to resign from tank? I would rather resign from attack helicopters instead of tanks.
Tank is incredibly universal, versitile, effective, highly survivable platform that in the same time is relatively cheap... why to resign from it? Because some fanboys of electronics and these useless flying machines says so?
NATO air forces during Balkan wars, being one of most powerfull in the world if not most powerfull, was capable to destroy only 14 enemy tanks... from approx 200 used there. This is not even funny, this is patethic.
In 1991 during Operation Desert Storm 80-90% of Iraqi ground forces were destroyed by coalition ground forces (mainly tanks and IFV's) not by air forces, in fact air forces just manipulated data and lied about it's own effectiveness against enemy ground forces.
Very same situation in 2003, everywhere they say that no tank battle had place in Iraq, where in fact there were tank battles, some really serious.
Or let's take anti insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Where tanks deliver precise and quick firepower where they are operating with minimal collateral damage, and also have psycological effects on enemy and local population + improve morale of own forces, artillery and air forces proves to be slow on delivering firepower, less precise, do high collateral damage, kill huge numbers of civilians, and are far more expensive than a single HE round for a tank gun.
And this single HE round for a tank gun is far more effective than smaller calliber weapons of APC's and IFV's.
Think about that.