“As long as there is infantry there will be tanks.”
That’s probably true, but they are unlikely to be the massive fuel hungry logistics laden behemoths of today. Most likely they’ll be small remotely controlled or small with a minimum logistics footprint. The army was incredibly frustrated with General Dyanmics’ failure to design lighter vehicles that they went to Oshkosh and two other suppliers. The M1A1 and Stryker were unsuited for Afghanistan. The army has attempted several times to shut the production facility in Lima, Ohio, but so far GD’s pocket congressmen have stopped them from doing so. (I don’t know what’s in this budget, but in the last one Congress earmarked Army funds that could only be spent there.)
All excellent points. A lighter more mobile tank is certainly needed. But, I would not suggest scrapping the Abrams just yet. Keep in mind that in the years leading up to Desert Storm all the smart military thinkers had declared the time of big tank battles had passed. And btw, the same for division size infantry.
My dad always called tanks armored coffins and he was a tanker way back when.
Your posts are always really interesting about the behind the scenes of military contracting and procurement.
I have a little seat time in an Abrams from playing NG back in the early 90s and even then believed that their time would end as a dominant player seeing what it took just to support the few we used just on weekend warrior ride around.