I hadn't thought of that. It does seem to be the most logical next step. Good thinking.

Sam-- there is no magical solution to this very tough engineering, doctrinal and strategic challenge. If we are to maintain battlefield superiority than we have to be on the cutting edge of technology. IMHO, we (the Army) consistently push the envelope too far and consequently, we are overwhelmed when after zillions of dollars and time we cannot field what we thought would be a solution. I cite Comanche, Crusader, ACE , M60A2 and of course my favorite- - the Future Combat System. I hope (and that is not a method) we appreciate what needs to be done, create a vision for what we want and then pursue it in a manner that does not tie everyone in knots. We have done it before (M60A1, M60A3 and the M-1, M109 and M113, Bradley, etc.). Be nice to see some of the smart guys on this site contribute ther ideas. As I stated in the beginning, this is a multi faceted opportunity to improve our offensive reach. But, we need to know what we want the system to do, what size we want it to be and the key performance parameters the system must posses but we go charging off into the sunset. The Panther was and remains a marvelous fighting system, but it was introduced too rapidly and never realize its full potential until late in the war (thank goodness). We need to be right the first time.

My two cents, what about you?
DJ

Personally, I think the Army, under Rumsfelt, replacing Armored Divisions with Stryker Brigades is a bad idea. Tanks have always been the heavy punch to break trough the enemy lines. Today you might think we don’t need them, but history has a strange way of repeating it’s self, for instance; WW1 and WW2 large encompassing wars, Vietnam and Iraq smaller more unconventional wars. Big question is why we are always trying to fight today’s war, with the last war’s mentality? We need to be ready for a large war as well as the smaller ones. I see the need for a heavy armored close infantry support weapon never going away. Weather it be tracked, wheeled, air cushioned or anti-gravity doesn’t change that fact. Also every time we come up with a weapon to knock out a tank, we develop new armor or counter measures to defeat it. No, I believe the Tank is here to stay and we will always have a need for it. Someone PLEASE tell the Army for me before all we have left to model is little wheeled missile carriers.
Don

I see it like this:
1: There are sooo many tanks around the world and the best weapon against a tank is another tank.
2: Peacekeepers deploy tanks because let's face it, guys toting rifles are (as a general rule) scared to death of tanks. Look at the Italian KFOR contingent that guarded a monastery.
3; Only combined arms operations are going to work. This is true past present and future.

Having said that I expect that we will see more and more armor in the lighter classes such as the Wiesel. The Wiesel provides for an armoured unit that is flexible to perform a multitude of tasks and yet be light enough to be easily moved anywhere need be. From the Tow to a 20mm to a 120mm mortar the Wiesel can do it all. BUT the big boys will still be needed to fight big tank battles. M1, Leo et al are here to stay!

Is the tank doomed? I'd say no.

I think tanks may be on the way out as I continually hear non-military types remark about how great/easy/fast/clean airpower is to use. I think a great deal of the debate will boil down to public perception on the conduct of conflicts since historically we have increasing media coverage.