Internationalist Bastard wrote:Isilanka wrote:I think we'll still need the heavies for quite some time.
In a way the debate around tanks is quite similar to the debate around manned jet fighters. Both are expensive to build and maintain and both have proved quite unnefective in asymetric conflicts. However, a weapon system is only viable or not in relative terms, depending on what you use it for and the doctrine of your army. For fighting another conventional army, you still need tanks. I don't think we have yet reached the point where weapons are so effective powerful and heavily armored vehicles aren't useful anymore.
I mean IFVs and stuff are very effective but they are heavily fragile, one shouldn't overestimate them. They're very useful but they can't be the be all and end all of the battlefield.
I haven’t seen a heavy tank in action but I know an rpg can take out every thing I have seen in action short of a plane
Depends. Tanks have been seen to shrug off rpg rounds in asymetric conflicts (see above about the Challenger 2). The problem is that rpgs still have a lower range than tanks (and in fact even anti-tank long-range missiles like Milan missiles). Not saying tanks are impervious to rpgs or even improvised weapon, without even talking of the nasty anti-tank stuff modern infantry can carry, but a heavy tank is still a hard nut to crack, especially if used correctly.
That being said I'm playing the armchair strategist here, so if someone with military experience wants to correct me, I'll gladly accept it.