The tank's primary stated goal has always been to support the infantry. The fact that western tanks have been designed to kill other tanks is a result of the political and military climate at the time they were designed. I believe there will always be a need for tanks on the battlefield. I would rather have tanks in a modern combined arms force than not have them

---

 True that, brother.  We are in an environment where armor is more important than ever, hell the new Puma can be up-armored to 40+ tons...what does a T72 weigh again??

And this is why the M1A2 is better than a T90:  a 4 man crew is not enough in an urban environment to have eyes on all avenues of attack, so a 3 man crew is woefully inadequate.  Who is going to be operating the Remote Weapons Station on a T90?

 

The real Tank of the Future should have 5 crew:  Front-engined like the Merkava, driver, commander, loader and Remote Weapon Station 1 operator, Main Gunner (main and co-ax) and Mechanic/Secondary Gunner for Remote Weapon Station 2.  

 

Not much real increase in manpower as the 5th crewman would be tasked with much of the maintenance for the tank.  You also get a better ability to man 24 hour watches.

 

 

.

The tank's main job is not infantry support.  Pre WWII there various theories on armored warfare and various types of tanks including cruiser, light, and infantry tanks in the UK with similar types in the USSR, France, Germany, etc.

 

The Panzer division operating in corp formations indicates that tanks are not designed primarily to support infantry but operate within combined arms formations to achieve operational and strategic objectives.

 

The combined arms team of cavalry, foot soldiers and archers which by the 20th century became tanks, infantry and artillery has been around since the dawn of warfare and neither arm supports the other two but rather they work as a team.

 

The various tank models were mostly a failure and the tank evolved into the main battle tank for a lot of reasons.  One main consideration is that war is messy and you can't make pretty doctrines of what fights what as a large proportion of combat consists of meeting engagements and thus tanks often fight other tanks whether by design or not.

 

All this aside modern US armored doctrine might indicate that tanks and mechanized infantry are equal but their not.  In fact mechanized infantry in US armored formations normally exist to speed the tanks forward and thus the infantry actually support the tanks,  in an armored formation.  Sure tanks do infantry support and are assigned to infantry units for this task.  Most tanks, however, exist within armored formations.  These armored brigades and divisions are not primarily doing infantry support at the tactical nor operational level.

Infantry is the only force with the capability of holding terrain.  So yes during an assault or break-out infantry will support the tanks when they are making full use of their shock value.  after the enemy's armor is depleted, which will be in very short order in anything other than a massive land battle in europe or asia, then the tank is again infantry support.  Just like it was for the 10 years after "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, and from day 1 in Afghanistan.

 

More proof:  Look at the Marines.  MEU has 4 tanks - do the other 800 Marines exist just to support this one platoon?

Army doctrine.  Have we updated that since I served in the 8th ID, based out of Bad-K in WEST Germany, or the Big Red 1 in Armpit, Kansas in the mid-80's?

 

Seems like what the Israelis have been facing is pretty much what we have faced in the last, oh, 50 years.  And with the collapse of the USSR, what is more likely?  Massive peer-to-peer engagements or asymmetrical warfare?

 

The Merkava is designed for MOUT.  That's what we need armor for.  The main threat is IEDs, mines, RPGs and ATGMs, not threat armor or air assets.