Is the MBT tactically irrelevant? I ask because of all the weapon systems designed to kill it...just in US service check out the following...
 |
| Maverick Missile |
 |
| A-10's Gun |
 |
| DAGR 2.75 rocket noteworthy because it could revolutionize attack helicopters. Instead of a heavy load of 16 antitank missiles you could carry a 'light' load of perhaps 32 DAGR's...don't laugh, an RPG-29 penetrated an M1 in Iraq. These should be several times more powerful...just need the right warhead. |
 |
| Brimstone (not US) but supposedly we have our own version under development...noteworthy because so many rounds can be carried by one airplane. |
 |
| Hellfire (love this guys artwork) |
All this and we haven't even started to look at GPS guided weapons that can be retrofitted for the precision work necessary to take out tanks...we haven't even talked about area denial weapons and bomblets designed to channel and destroy tanks...I haven't even talked about precision artillery shells.
I have been critical of our allies that appear to be destroying there heavy armor forces but perhaps in this area a 'holiday' can be taken.
History has shown that although artillery is still the biggest killer on the modern battlefield, most attention has been paid to destroying tanks.
Perhaps the threat to tanks has finally pushed it into the obsolete category...useful, but on a modern battlefield too heavily hunted to be able to hunt.
