sunstersun wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 18:13
The cost benefit analysis of the MBT has completely changed with ATGMS.
It didn't when ATGW were introduced, nor when they were used en masse in the Yom Kippur war.
The tank has been declared obsolete on a regular basis since they were introduced in the first place. The tank evolves along with its threats, but so far it hasn't been a complete revision.
sunstersun wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 18:53
One way to look at it is naval combat.
WW2 we still had gunner teams meant to sink ships.
Now its missiles vs missiles defense.
The environment ships operate in is substantially different to that which tanks work in, and what kills a tank is somewhat different to what kills a warship.
A very good point I've seen made is that the move from horse cavalry to mechanised units wasn't down to opposition weaponry making cavalry impossible, but the mechanised units being able to do what horse cavalry did, but better. Similarly with the naval example, carriers and missile-armed ships could do what battleships did (deliver warheads to target) but better.
sunstersun wrote: ↑01 Jun 2022, 18:13
No one is suggesting a metal sheet only against small arms. It's gotta be able to stop low end AT weapons and RPG's like the Bradley can.
That's still a substantial amount of armour. Then consider that if you reduce the maximum armour protection you have then you open yourself up to the enemy countering with a much quicker to service system. For example, a less optimised gun shell is less vulnerable to APS-style defences. A stouter APFSDS or even full-bore shell will bull through APS and still get through your reduced armour, and this shell is travelling three to six times faster than an ATGM. On top of this, engagement ranges are dictated by terrain more than weapon ranges, further distancing land warfare from naval. Chances are that you will detect your target within gun ranges rather than where your missiles are at an advantage.