In modern warfare, control of airspace, the long-range capability of ICBM's, plus new tactics in guerilla warfare has made the tank superfluous. It stands no chance against IED's and RPG's launched by unseen enemies.

By kalajutu | March 17, 2011 11:56 AM

I agree as a former cavalrist that heavy tanks, certainly in small numbers, are vulnerable and too slow. But going without armour in modern conflicts like Afghanistan would be irresponsible and we should look for instance at the fast, heavily armoured Mastiff cars from the British Royal Tank Regiment.No idea about the cost/unit but they should be less expensive.

By van Schaaij | March 17, 2011 4:30 PM

Tanks are absolutely still a valuable asset on the battlefield. The control of airspace does not control the ground and all battles are not guerilla.

By Ron | March 17, 2011 8:43 PM

I guess in the present context it makes sense to scrap tank divisions, like it did to scarp cavalry in the 50's/

By Andre L. | March 18, 2011 7:53 AM

Try to tell that to the people in Georgia when the Russian tanks rolled in. ICBMs and such were irrelevant in that conflict. Control of airspace is hugely crucial, but is still never a substitute for control of land. I will agree that against IEDs, though, tanks are not great. Here what is needed is intel. Problem is that this is a four legged table - control air, land and sea, plus intel on how to acquire and use the control - or else it falls over.

By Matt | March 18, 2011 3:21 PM

thats the most absurd statement ive ever heard. main battles tank are a very necessary force in a modern well equipped army.. western tanks have very high survivability in combat situations as seen in Afghanistan.

By kipp wilborn | March 20, 2011 7:07 AM

So when the Germans come again we will just ride out on our bikes to meet them again...third time lucky?

By Jason Buttle | March 20, 2011 9:32 AM

Going up against an Abrams M1A2 with an RPG-7, is not advisable. neither with small arms or heavy machine guns. It takes a very special weapon to take down armor, or at least enough sophistication to produce a very high explosive IED. Most victims from IEDs in Afghanistan are from light vehicles, sometimes even open unarmoured, or just pressure plates set to go off at a certain weight capacity, like that of an infantry grunt carrying arms, ammo, armour, and equipment. Don't forget the Soviet troops in the eighties. They had good use for tanks rolling into villages, but todays approach requires a certain sensitivity towards the local farming community; no ploughing fields with M1A2's.

By Alexander | March 28, 2011 2:21 AM

I would rather keep a minimum of two tanks and upgrade them year after rear. So in case of need you could quickly reload a production. (modernized).

By Alessandro Bernardi | April 5, 2011 6:53 PM

I think you are putting your troops at high risk. The Canadians thought that they will never would need tanks again and now they are buying second had Leo 2A6 that the Dutch think they don´t need any more. Makes no sense buying Boxers AFV, CV90 and Fenneks, as Netherlands has bought, and send them to the battlefield without Tanks leaving them alone to face an enemy with anti-tank missiles. If you keep this track, why don't get rid of your entire Army? Is this the way to establish a EU defense policy, vanishing our armies?

By Toni | May 6, 2011 3:48 AM