But a nation that has the means to own MBTs has the means (aerial, missile, artillery and others) to actually destroy them easily.

We never saw two "big" sides fighting with modern means. These are so destructive that it''s lucky really.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

If you want to win a war you still need to hold the ground. Which means that you need MBT to both defend and attack. Superiority of any arm of service or technology is a falacy which (sadly) "west" (read USA) falls for often.

As for land forces - there are plenty means to defend them agains air attacks, including CPGM AA, ECM systems, advanced camouflage and others.

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

You don't really need them to hold and defend. That's the point of IFVs and the like.

Actually, I correct myself: It really depends on the terrain. Flat lands would mean that what you say is true.

Most european grounds would reduce greatly the point off MBTs.

They cost too much to be used in an open modern war: They'd blow up pretty easily to lighter things, and the winners of such a war would be the one with the biggest initial numbers of.... Anything not infantry really.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

The issue here is that you only see the tactical level.

In Iraq tanks worked just as good, as did they work in 080808 war, not to mention the many Arab-Israel ones.

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

Again: Against outdated and badly trained ones. Not equal odds.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

No, it showed that manuever is still a valid concept (I meant the first gulf war). In it rapid mechanized forces (with tanks), airborne units and so on are nessesary.

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

The first gulf war show something important.

If you want to impact a country you need MBT... and helos (i like those prisonner line captured by an helicopter)...

But if youwant to HOLD you need inf and government... and political intention to do so....

_________________

Well not tanks strictly, but rather mechanized forces in general (including tank, IFV, self propeled arty, AA and so on).

Helicopters (artilery, other "deep fire means") are only a part of such combined arms force.

As for the security - you need police units and light infantry (+UAV and such systems).

In general it is a shame that late 80s/early 90s projects never were completed in USSR (obj 292 obj 477 and others)

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

Not much has changed since WWII(actually it's gotten even more important)...Rule number 1: Own the skies.

We are talking here about tanks right?

I dunno about other countries but here I would be pissing on an expensive Leo / Abrams / T90 from the top of the cliff while they would be stuck and cursing in the gorge.



True. But even that doesn't help you on certain terrain. Sometimes you have to go the old fashioned way bashing skulls.

_________________
How to derail a thread with style: