Miragedriver
Brigadier
I agree with all of you above. Here are some additional thoughts to discuss. As battlefield dynamics shift in the 21st century, the traditional Main Battle Tank (MBT) is increasingly being questioned. Once the king of land warfare, the MBT is now being challenged by cheaper, faster, and smarter alternatives. Here's a look at the three main systems emerging as potential replacements or complements:
Advantages:
High mobility, especially on roads and urban terrain
Faster strategic deployment (airliftable/logistically lighter)
Lower operational costs than tracked MBTs
Good firepower (105mm or 120mm guns)
Can provide Infantry support fire
Disadvantages:
Less armored protection than MBTs
Limited off-road performance in harsh terrain
Vulnerable to modern ATGMs and drones
Advantages:
Flexibility: transport troops and engage tanks
Precision: modern ATGMs are highly effective even against MBTs
Lower costs and easier maintenance
Ideal for asymmetric or hybrid warfare
Disadvantages:
Thin armor: vulnerable to enemy fire and indirect attacks
Limited staying power in high-intensity, sustained combat
Effectiveness depends on combined arms coordination
Advantages:
Extremely low cost per kill
Hard to detect and intercept
High lethality vs. stationary or slow targets (including tanks)
Can be operated from safe stand-off distances
Disadvantages:
Limited range and payload
Weather and jamming can degrade performance
Not a true replacement for armored platforms — better suited for hit-and-run or attrition tactics
For countries with limited budgets, the smart move might be a hybrid approach:
Fewer MBTs for heavy engagements
Wheeled vehicles and IFVs for mobility
Drones and ATGMs for precision strikes
The age of the tank isn't over — but the way tanks are used, and what supports them, is changing fast.
1) Wheeled Tank Destroyers
Examples: Centauro II, AMX-10RC, Stryker MGSAdvantages:
High mobility, especially on roads and urban terrain
Faster strategic deployment (airliftable/logistically lighter)
Lower operational costs than tracked MBTs
Good firepower (105mm or 120mm guns)
Can provide Infantry support fire
Disadvantages:
Less armored protection than MBTs
Limited off-road performance in harsh terrain
Vulnerable to modern ATGMs and drones
2) IFVs, APCs, and Light Tactical Vehicles with ATGMs
Examples: CV90, JLTV, Patria AMV with Spike or Javelin launchersAdvantages:
Flexibility: transport troops and engage tanks
Precision: modern ATGMs are highly effective even against MBTs
Lower costs and easier maintenance
Ideal for asymmetric or hybrid warfare
Disadvantages:
Thin armor: vulnerable to enemy fire and indirect attacks
Limited staying power in high-intensity, sustained combat
Effectiveness depends on combined arms coordination
3) Loitering Munitions ("Kamikaze Drones") on Light Vehicles
Examples: Mounted Switchblade 600s, Lancet drones, homemade systems in modern conflictsAdvantages:
Extremely low cost per kill
Hard to detect and intercept
High lethality vs. stationary or slow targets (including tanks)
Can be operated from safe stand-off distances
Disadvantages:
Limited range and payload
Weather and jamming can degrade performance
Not a true replacement for armored platforms — better suited for hit-and-run or attrition tactics
Final Thoughts:
MBTs aren't obsolete — but they're no longer the only game in town (just like the Battleship at the dawn of carriers). Instead of outright replacement, the future likely points to a combined force of lighter, more flexible platforms backed by precision weapons and drones.For countries with limited budgets, the smart move might be a hybrid approach:
Fewer MBTs for heavy engagements
Wheeled vehicles and IFVs for mobility
Drones and ATGMs for precision strikes
The age of the tank isn't over — but the way tanks are used, and what supports them, is changing fast.