The Armata is one of the most protected, if not the most protected IFV in the world. It seems that in terms of protection it is superior to most heavy armored personnel carrier and heavily-armored vehicles such as German Puma, or Namer, a heavily armoured infantry fighting vehicle based on the chassis of the Merkava 4 main battle tank of Israel, also called Tiger or Leopard.I've always thought that battlefield prioritization of targets had it wrong.
You don't kill the tanks first. You kill the IFV/APCs first.
Knocking out supporting infantry in a "tank" attack will cause the assault to slow and more likely to stop. Consider that we're seeing IFVs approaching the armor protection of MBTs (yeah I know that's a sketchy statement)...consider the fact that we're making them modern day tank destroyers because of the anti-tank missiles they carry....the fact that the infantry they carry simply adds to the available firepower inherent in each vehicle....
And its obvious to me that killing IFVs is the #1 priority on any battlefield not tanks.
So where does that leave tanks if we have IFVs that can destroy anything on the battlefield and yet carry troops? It means we're going back to the future!
We're going back to the British/French idea of Infantry Tanks. Super heavily armored, slow (they only need to keep pace with the grunts) and probably armed with small caliber cannons (no bigger than 30mm) and multiple, independently targetable machine guns. It will also probably be unmanned (all those cyber units being assigned to frontline units are gonna need a real job when everyone realizes that they actually have nothing to do...they're gonna transition over to being unmanned ground vehicle crewmen!).
The Matilda will live in the 21st Century!