I felt this place was lacking a topic about armoured wehicles/tanks and their tactics.
Some basic facts.
Armoured warfare has developed and changed by time. In the end of the first worldwar the tanks role was mainly as a infantry support wehicle. At the start of the secound worldwar many countries remained in this doctrine. The German blitzkrieg ( lightening war) was developed by heinz guderian just before the ww2 ( worldwar 2) First tried out at the civil war in spain. The philosophy is to mass and concentrate tanks in a small area, providing for a breakthrought. The panzers will then continue throught the frontline and into the 2,nd line and suply units. It also includes combined arm,s tactics, the use of dive bombers on bunkers and strongpoints. At the end of the worldwar tanks gained in size and the use of tank hunters became used by all nations. After the German capitulation the soviets presented the josif stalin 3 tank at a parade in Berlin. A new arms race developed between western nations and the soviet state. Tank hunters became obsolete due to the request of speed, fire on the move, and the development of better ammunitions. From the 1950,s towards the end of the 60,s the tank was king of the hill. The western nations counted the soviet tank treath by developing anti tank weapons far better then the existing bazooka. TOW and other anti tank missiles was developed, so was the combat helicopter and better striker aircrafts. There is much more to this but i try to be brief. The role of the tank changed from king to prey and new systems developed, revolving mobile anti air, and surface to air missile systems. At present moment the western nations all has their own mbt ( main battle tank) and the treath of former soviet built tanks are removed. What is the role of the modern tank? A armoured spearhead? infantry support? Both? Will it be replaced? What is the future for this weapon?
Some basic facts.
Armoured warfare has developed and changed by time. In the end of the first worldwar the tanks role was mainly as a infantry support wehicle. At the start of the secound worldwar many countries remained in this doctrine. The German blitzkrieg ( lightening war) was developed by heinz guderian just before the ww2 ( worldwar 2) First tried out at the civil war in spain. The philosophy is to mass and concentrate tanks in a small area, providing for a breakthrought. The panzers will then continue throught the frontline and into the 2,nd line and suply units. It also includes combined arm,s tactics, the use of dive bombers on bunkers and strongpoints. At the end of the worldwar tanks gained in size and the use of tank hunters became used by all nations. After the German capitulation the soviets presented the josif stalin 3 tank at a parade in Berlin. A new arms race developed between western nations and the soviet state. Tank hunters became obsolete due to the request of speed, fire on the move, and the development of better ammunitions. From the 1950,s towards the end of the 60,s the tank was king of the hill. The western nations counted the soviet tank treath by developing anti tank weapons far better then the existing bazooka. TOW and other anti tank missiles was developed, so was the combat helicopter and better striker aircrafts. There is much more to this but i try to be brief. The role of the tank changed from king to prey and new systems developed, revolving mobile anti air, and surface to air missile systems. At present moment the western nations all has their own mbt ( main battle tank) and the treath of former soviet built tanks are removed. What is the role of the modern tank? A armoured spearhead? infantry support? Both? Will it be replaced? What is the future for this weapon?
posted by:
|
|
Unsubscribed |
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Fri, July 21, 2006 - 9:06 AMI think that there is a long-term trend towards larger and larger tanks.
The reasons why are:
1) Advances in engineering make, and will make, it easier to render larger vehicles effectively mobile. Compare the World War II PkKwVIb "King Tiger" with the modern M1A2 Abrams, both vehicles in the 70-80 ton weight class. The King Tiger was slow and carried only an 88mm main gun. The Abrams is fast and sports a 125mm gun. One of the reasons for the difference is that the Abrams has a turbine adapted from jet engine design.
2) Advances in anti-tank weapons imperil smaller tanks, while larger tanks will soon be carrying active defenses against ATGM's. The US Army has already developed an electromagnetic shield that disrupts the formation of the thermal jet of a shaped-charge warhead, and there are radar- and laser-guided land versions of the Close-In Weapons Systems used by naval warships in the works. But bigger tanks will have an advantage in carrying more and better anti-missile weaponry.
3) Eventually, AFV's will be nuclear powered, and there are serious economies of scale in powering larger as opposed to smaller vehicles with atomic energy. Also, a nuclear-powered vehicle is non-airbreathing, and such a vehicle can if necessary crawl along the bottom of a waterway (assuming it has sufficiently wide tracks). This makes it less dependent upon bridges, which have historically limited maximum Armored Fighting Vehicles sizes.
For these reasons, I think there are Bolos and Ogres (or more realistic equivalents) in our future :)
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan -
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Wed, July 26, 2006 - 2:55 PMOn the contrary,
What the US experience in the first gulf war, was that they could not get the Abrams to the Iraq & Kuwait quickly enough. They were too heavy to put on a plane and the US had down size their Roll-On Roll-Off ships in the merchant marine. Thus they developed the Stryker WAV. You have to transport you equipment to the battle, not wait for the battle to come to you.
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mav.htm
BTW, my father had a very small part in the design of the first Abrams tank. He was equipment recovery specialist in Vietnam and trucked them down to the Navy docks for repair. When he finished his tour, they assign him to the proven grounds for the first Abrams Tank and he was a consultant for the design of the trailer to transport it. -
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Fri, July 28, 2006 - 2:31 AMAre we talking tanks or armored fighting vehicles? There's a bit of mixing here. I do see larger tanks with larger cannons, but as far as AFV's, I think we'll see a trend toward some of the smaller styles like you see with our European allies here in Afghanistan. Large striker type AFV's are not easy to maneuver, and they're slow. not what you want to get out of a kill zone in. They have done well for a large part of the IED's that have hit them but now they're improving them. So is it's main protection is small arms fire, speed and maneuverability would be preferable to heavier armor.
Oh byw, thanks for letting me play -
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Fri, July 28, 2006 - 10:35 AMAhh maybe your right about the mixing.
I am not saying that there is no push for bigger tanks with bigger guns. From my perspective as current Architectural & Engineering background and as a welder of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers in a former life, I think the trend would be to have the same physical size of vehicle/ship/platform but with larger guns, better physical & electronic defenses, and faster maneuverability with smaller crews.
I do agree with you on the AFVs need to speed, maneuverability which is vital. IF you can’t hit it, you can’t kill or wound it.
However my point in the previous post is you have to transport the AFV (whether that is a tank or Humvee) to the fight. The Bigger item you are transporting is; there is more difficult and longer it takes to get to where you need it. I could be wrong (most likely) but I think the Stryker was design and built to overcome transportation flaw that the Abrams has. The Abrams is dam heavy.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Paladin, keep your head down while you are over there. -
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Fri, July 28, 2006 - 11:06 AMWell, you can to some extent upgrade an existing chassis to a heavier armament. This was historically done with the Abrams (from a 105mm American-made gun to the current 125mm Rheinmetall German-made gun), and has also happened with other long-lasting tank designs (such as the T-34 and the Sherman, for example). But at some point the existing chassis becomes inadequate to the need.
I think that the appearance (which I expect to happen within a decade or two) of anti-missile guns small enough to put on a tank will force an upwards leap in tank sizes, probably to the 100-ton range. I also think that main battle tanks will acquire more weapons systems capable of indirect observation and combat -- I believe there's already a 125mm fire-and-forget round designed for the Abrams' main gun, isn't there? -- and the utility of a telescoping sight arm, possibly carrying missiles, would be great. But all this would need more deck space to fit on a single vehicle.
I believe that in the long run the tendency will be towards the development of superheavy tanks which will normally remain _behind_ the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area) so as to avoid being targets of cheap but short-ranged tank-killing or tank-damaging weapons, which will carry both direct-fire and indirect-fire weapons and will move up to the FEBA to spearhead important pushes. Routine holding the line activity will be done by medium to light tanks roughly the size of modern Abrams to Bradley vehicles. Essentially the superheavies will provide the punch and the lighter vehicles the escort.
And I think that when the weapons design creates the necessity the transport capacity will expand to meet it. We are already learning how to build more efficient container ships and bigger and better airplanes and trucks, and I don't see this trend ending any time soon.
I do see bottlenecks with existing bridges and tunnels. Heavy or superheavy tanks will always be limited by terrain in ways that their lighter cousins are not. On the other hand, over time the width and capacity of bridges has tended to increase -- something like a modern large suspension bridge could carry anything short of a Keith Laumer-esque thirty-thousand-ton Bolo (which, of course, wouldn't need it because it is fusion powered and can hop rivers on antigravity or wade under them) :)
I also think that within the next half-century we will see walker AFV's (i.e. "mecha") appear for real. These will not be as flashy as anime mecha, and they will probably save for the smallest ones be non-anthromorphic (the likely models for their layout will be spiders). They will be specialized rough-terrain vehicles; the tracked and wheeled AFV's will still rule the plains and rolling hills, but the "mecha" will have their own stage in the cities, forests and badlands, where the ability to climb or maneuver around obstacles through complex use of legs will become important. The key requirement will be an improvement over servomotors as actuators, probably by polymer pseudo-muscles.
Elements of this technology will also appear on ordinary tanks -- in particular we will see more tracked and wheeled vehicles with a robot arm or arms to facilitate loading, shoot around obstacles without exposing the main turret or hull to enemy fire, etc. etc. This will of course be especially true for engineering vehicles, which will benefit by allowing the crew to handle dangerous explosives while remaining behind the protection of their vehicle's army.
Other points:
Top armor becomes more important as fire-and-forget self-forging shoot-down projectiles appear in greater quantity.
All-around armor becomes more important as brilliant missiles are developed which home in on weak spots in armor schemes.
Titanium steels, and eventually iridium and osmium steels, become more affordable as mining tech (including extraterrestrial mining tech) improves.
Carbon nanofiber cables and fabrics become very important but, because they are not very heat-resistant compared to steels, mostly as elements in a composite-armor, composite-structure scheme.
Energy weapons appear in quantity on the battlefield, initially in the air / missile defense role.
In consequence, armoring missiles becomes more important, and you start to see the apperance of very large missiles with multiple penetration aids -- essentially flying "torpedoes" -- as ordinary missiles as we know them today become increasingly useless against first-line armored vehicles.
Drones become vital for recon and light combat work. Eventually manned vehicles are surrounded by swarms of drones for which they are indirect fire support and carriers.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
-
-
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Fri, July 28, 2006 - 10:47 AMTed said:
> What the US experience in the first gulf war, was that they could not get the Abrams to the Iraq & Kuwait quickly enough. They were too heavy to put on a plane and the US had down size their Roll-On Roll-Off ships in the merchant marine. Thus they developed the Stryker WAV. You have to transport you equipment to the battle, not wait for the battle to come to you. <
Quite true, and the development of the electrostatic shield (I'm not sure what it's being called) as an anti-shaped charge defensive system increases the survivability of small AFV's against such weapons. But it's also clear that the Abrams dominates the battlefield when it is present, and hence the long-term solution to this problem is to improve our military transport capability, because we'll want to have at least _some_ heavy tanks rapidly on the scene. (I'm quite aware that there is no magic way to fix the larger problem that the bigger tank requires more total tonnage both to carry itself and to carry its supplies).
Oh, cool, then your dad was part of the solution to the problem of transporting the Abrams that I was talking about! :)
- Jordan -
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Sat, July 29, 2006 - 7:42 AMAll points are very well made. Yet the striker is still an APC and not a tank. I also think that Jordan is correct about the role of smaller missiles on the battlefield, I don't think they'll be done by tanks. I think (personal opinon here) that we will see an expansion of the rocket corps with smaller verions of the MRLS. Tanks will remain projectile direct fire weapons with the primary advance being the means of populsion. Wether it's caseless ammo or electromagnegtic rail systems it'll still be a chunk of lead (er..depleted ur. or some other subtance) flying through the air really fast.
I do like the idea of Mechs but still don't believe that the bipedal idea is sound, I'm more in favor of walkers. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Mon, August 14, 2006 - 11:31 AMThanx for all the fruitfull comments! Alot of information to process here.
Some trends i have been noticing.
Armoured wehicles fitted with larger guns in some trials.
Research based on two komponent propelants. Reducing the space to store shells.
Research in elector magnetic fire systems. But they havent solved the power source/ space problem as far as i know.
A new design on the drawing board to replace the Abrams It,s due to trials in 2015. This thing is a beauty. It,s flat like a pancake. The turret dosent have any crew, and the cannon has a rectangular shape. I even think this thing supose to be stealth! Saw it on discovery.
The soviets also had a new thing comming. Looked like the old designs in general, but with a tiny turret, with an extremely tall cannon.
The turret has no crew. Also, alot of modifications to old equipment ( T-72) has taken place, where improvised armour has been fitted in boxes on the turret. Look at the T-55 Enigma for a reference.
I think the future tank will go flater and flater to provide a good hulldown. Mayby it would be possible to make a giraff turret, not to expose the tank at all? I also think that future tanks will be designed with the engine in front like the IDF Merkava 3. But then, mobility is very important. Mayby there would be a system to provide for better cover once a tank is imobilized? Some of my guesswork also includes smart bullets. There is a sort of sniper bullet with fins on it. First they mark the target with laser, then the bullet stears itself to the point after it,s been fiered. My idea is a tank bullet with fins. It could be programed to identify previously programed tanks profiles. Then, fly towards it and hit a weak spot that the program sugests. It could then also be programmed to ignore the chinese bult blazers. If a smoke screen is put, the program could terminate and turn the bullet into a dumb bullet.
Another problem that has always been, but then the weight of the tank is the problem.. is the roof! This is the weak point mostly. I think atleast something new will happen in the subject turret armour.
-
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Sat, August 19, 2006 - 4:55 AMI think that as shoulder fired weapons become more accessable, there will be little use for traditional armor except in cases where air and combat troops are working in unison. The US example of clearing Faluja is the case for integrated assault with armor moving effectively.
In the next breath I look at the example of armor in Lebenon where Israeli tanks were getting blown to shit by modifide soviet shoulder fired anti-tank weapons. (The missles were modifide so well they are now considered the most advanced personel carried anti-tank weapon on the planet. I guess if you have access to sophisticated technology and large weapons, your fine, Otherwise, bend over and pray for the best. -
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Sat, August 19, 2006 - 11:01 AMMayo said:
> I think that as shoulder fired weapons become more accessable, there will be little use for traditional armor except in cases where air and combat troops are working in unison. The US example of clearing Faluja is the case for integrated assault with armor moving effectively. <
This has been true since roughly 1943-44, which is when panzerfausts and bazookas became common battlefield weapons, if by "traditional armor" you mean main battle tanks operating without infantry support. It is standard armored doctrine for armor to work in conjunction with infantry (which is why mechanized infantry is attached to armored formations), and infantry _always_ played the main role in fighting in heavily congested terrain, such as cities (armor in such terrains functions more as mobile heavy support weapons than in a traditional maneuver role).
At the same time I'll point out that the most modern MBT's are pretty much immune to frontal shots from most shoulder-fired weapons (and very resistant to even the heaviest man-portable weapons), which means that an MBT with infantry support to keep enemy infantry from getting flank and especially rear shots still has a tremendous advantage fighting lighter forces.
> In the next breath I look at the example of armor in Lebenon where Israeli tanks were getting blown to shit by modified soviet shoulder fired anti-tank weapons. <
I actually haven't heard these reports -- can you tell me _which_ tanks and _which_ weapons, and under what tactical circumstances? After having heard about the Hepzbullah noisily celebrating after merely _damaging a frigate_, and having some experience of Arab battlefield claims from past wars, I am more than a little bit skeptical of Arab claims of battlefield success in general -- I rather suspect that this is a case of one or two Israeli tanks getting ambushed from the flank or rear and destroyed or damaged, and Hepzbullah exaggerating this into a Famous Tank Victory.
I remember hearing some people claiming that the M-1 Abrams was an "unsuccessful" main battle tank on the basis that in 2003 some Iraqi troops managed to knock out (not even catastrophically kill!) a couple of them by ambushing flank fire. This was similar nonsense: one _expects_ some tanks to be crippled or destroyed in warfare; the issue is the ease of kill and by what weapons. Main battle tanks are tough targets for all but the heaviest battlefield weapons; this does not mean that they are or should be expected to be completely invulnerable!
In particular, there is an obvious tendency for _older_ tanks to be vulnerable to _newer_ weapons; this has been the case since the start of World War II. Were the Israeli tanks knocked out Merkavas or some older model of AFV; and what mark of Merkava were they? (The oldest Merkavas date back to the early 1980's).
- Jordan
-
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Sun, August 20, 2006 - 4:21 PM<>Trust me, start with this:<>
Tanks take stock
One-tenth of the Israeli tanks that took part in the Lebanon war were destroyed or disabled, a military study found.
According to Armored Corps data published Thursday, Hezbollah anti-armor missiles penetrated 20 Israeli tanks during the monthlong war, killing 17 crewmen. Another 13 crewmen were killed when land mines destroyed or disabled their tanks. The number of tank crewmen wounded was in the double digits.
The high toll of the war on Israel’s Armored Corps was a shock to top military brass, especially given the fact that Hezbollah has no tanks.
Some experts said the tanks dispatched to Lebanon were older, less protected versions of the locally made Merkava. Two Israeli arms firms now have speeded up work on a tank anti-missile system.
<>Now that you know that it has happened, here are the details:<>
Hezbollah's Creative Tactical Use of Anti-Tank Weaponry
By Andrew McGregor
The Russian-made, Syrian-supplied Kornet missile.
As the world waits to see if the UN-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon holds, the Israeli army will begin assessing its disappointing performance against Hezbollah guerrillas. Among the many aspects to be investigated is the vulnerability of Israel's powerful armored corps to small, hand-held, wire-guided anti-tank weapons. Indeed, Hezbollah's innovative use of anti-tank missiles was the cause of most Israeli casualties and has given the small but powerful weapons a new importance in battlefield tactics.
In a recent statement, Hezbollah's armed wing, al-Moqawama al-Islamia (Islamic Resistance), described Israel's main battle-tank as "a toy for the rockets of the resistance" (al-Manar TV, August 11). Hezbollah's anti-tank weapons consist of a variety of wire-guided missiles (usually of Russian design and manufactured and/or supplied by Iran and Syria) and rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPGs). The missiles include the European-made Milan, the Russian-designed Metis-M, Sagger AT-3, Spigot AT-4 and the Russian-made Kornet AT-14. The latter is a Syrian supplied missile capable of targeting low-flying helicopters. Iraqi Fedayeen irregulars used the Kornet against U.S. forces in 2003. The most portable versions of these weapons are carried in a fiberglass case with a launching rail attached to the lid.
On July 30, the Israeli army published photos of various anti-tank missiles they claim to have found in a Hezbollah bunker (see: www.hnn.co.il/index.php The weapons include Saggers and TOW missiles. The TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) missile is a formidable weapon first produced by the United States in the 1970s. These missiles were of interest as their packing crates were marked 2001, suggesting that these were relatively new additions to Hezbollah's arsenal and not part of the shipment of TOW missiles from Israel to Iran that was part of the Iran-Contra scandal of 1986 (the shelf-life of the TOW is roughly 20 years). On August 6, Israeli Major-General Benny Gantz showed film of BGM-71 TOW and Sagger AT-3 missiles he reported were captured at one of Hezbollah's field headquarters (Haaretz, August 6).
The primary target of Hezbollah's battlefield missiles is the Israeli-made Merkava tank. The Merkava was designed for the maximum protection of its crews, with heavy armor and a rear escape hatch. The emphasis on crew survival is not simply a humanitarian gesture; the small country of Israel cannot provide an endless number of trained, combat-ready tank crews if casualties begin to mount. The tank is also designed to be easily and quickly repaired, a specialty of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The modular armor plating can be easily replaced if damaged, or replaced entirely with upgraded materials when available. The first generation of Merkavas was built in the 1970s and was soon deployed in Lebanon in 1982. The much-improved Merkava Mk 4 has been Israel's main battle-tank since its introduction in 2004.
Current battlefield reports suggest that Hezbollah fighters are well-trained in aiming at the Merkava's most vulnerable points, resulting in as many as one-quarter of their missiles successfully piercing the armor (Yediot Aharonot, August 10). Hezbollah attacks on Merkava tanks during the November 2005 raid on the border town of Ghajar were videotaped and closely examined to find points where the armor was susceptible to missile attack. While some of their missiles have impressive ranges (up to three kilometers), the guerrillas prefer to fire from close range to maximize their chances of hitting weak points on the Merkava. Operating in two- or three-man teams, the insurgents typically try to gain the high ground in the hilly terrain before selecting targets, using well-concealed missile stockpiles that allow them to operate behind Israeli lines (Jerusalem Post, August 3).
Without artillery, Hezbollah has adapted its use of anti-tank missiles for mobile fire support against Israeli troops taking cover in buildings. There are numerous reports of such use, the most devastating being on August 9, when an anti-tank missile collapsed an entire building, claiming the lives of nine Israeli reservists (Y-net, August 10). Four soldiers from Israel's Egoz (an elite reconnaissance unit) were killed in a Bint Jbail house when it was struck by a Sagger missile (Haaretz, August 6). TOW missiles were used effectively in 2000 against IDF outposts in south Lebanon before the Israeli withdrawal. There are also recent instances of anti-tank weapons being used against Israeli infantry in the field, a costly means of warfare but one that meets two important Hezbollah criteria: the creation of Israeli casualties and the preservation of highly-outnumbered Hezbollah guerrillas who can fire the weapons from a relatively safe distance.
It was suggested that the IDF helicopter brought down by Hezbollah fire on August 12 was hit by an anti-tank missile. Hezbollah claimed to have used a new missile called the Wa'ad (Promise), although the organization occasionally renames existing missiles (Jerusalem Post, August 12). At least one of Israel's ubiquitous armored bulldozers has also fallen prey to Hezbollah's missiles.
The Syrian-made RPG-29 was previously used with some success against Israeli tanks in Gaza. Hezbollah also uses this weapon, with a dual-warhead that allows it to penetrate armor. On August 6, the Israeli press reported that IDF intelligence sources claimed that an improved Russian-made version of the RPG-29 was being sold to Syria before transfer to the Islamic Resistance (Haaretz, August 6). In response, Russia's Foreign Ministry denied any involvement in supplying anti-tank weapons to Hezbollah (RIA Novosti, August 10). The IDF reports that anti-tank missiles and rockets continue to cross the border into Lebanon from Syria, despite the destruction of roads and bridges in the area (Haaretz, August 13).
The Merkava tank has assumed an important role as a symbol of Israeli military might. Their destruction in combat has an important symbolic value for Hezbollah. Hezbollah's tactical innovations and reliance on anti-tank missiles over more traditional infantry weapons will undoubtedly prompt serious introspection on the part of the IDF in anticipation of renewed conflict along the border.
jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Sun, August 20, 2006 - 4:23 PMSorry about the mistatement about the weapon being shoulder fired earlier. Some are, many are not. -
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Sun, August 20, 2006 - 4:30 PMHere is something interesting from the article:
"Two Israeli arms firms now have speeded up work on a tank anti-missile system."
I believe that something is in near final stages of development. I have not looked into this at all, just saw the video once awhile back.
Here is TROPHY, the next generation in anti-armor weapons protection:
www.youtube.com/watch -
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Mon, August 21, 2006 - 4:46 AMWe that link was a productivity killer here at my work.
LOL :)
Interstering Article.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Armoured wehicles.
Fri, January 25, 2008 - 5:44 AMA completely flat AFV hill suffer hull down as shown by performance differences between soviet tanks used in the IDF and centurions and other western tanks. This has to do with gun depression which is impeded in a flat design by the slope and or shape of the front hull. WW2 German tank destroyers (or hunters more correctly and poetic) avoided this by not using a turret at all but suffered on the attack due to limited gun traverse.
The stryker is more or less just an IMV or infantry mobility verhicle similar examples are the saxon, bushmaster, commando and so on. It is only built to resist 14.5 mm rounds. It is basically a wheeled APC a very nice one to be sure but not a tank or a replacement for a tank.
A tank is primarily a armoured high mobility verhicle killer with a seconday ability to destroy infantry. Tanks are armoured to withstand the average infantry weapons (note not heavy AT weapons) with usually a rapid fire high velocity gun that allows them to dominate a given area. They are versatile being able to fire on a variety of targets quickly with a high degree of accuracy. Tanks are not designed to be invulnerable as is shown in the abrams example there are trade offs in protection against mobility. Javelin and other missiles and anti tank weapons can be highly effective on unsupported units just like MPADS and other sams or AAA can destroy unsupported aircraft (yet no one says ohhh aircraft are obsolete they can be shot down).
Fuller, Liddel Hart, Gedurian and Patton among many many others have developed tactics and strategies to make the most of the tank, mobile warfare REQUIRES combined arms groups moving so fast enemy units intelligence and C3 cannot keep up. Nowhere will you see anymore unsupported tank attacks. This also makes the tank somewhat unsuitable for riot control or counter insurgency despite the firepower advantage conferred by the Tank.
If the IDF had been willing to do whatever to anyone in gaza all AT sites would have been hit by artillery, of course they didn't want global condemnation or mass killings so tried to do things surgically which is fine in theory but still isn't a true reality yet. However few AT teams will be able to aim straight if they are receiving 155 HE.
The tank in the future will have better defenses against man portable weapons to match the better man portable weapons, a better faster more versatile or accurate gun, better battle awareness and networked C3 allowing for better support and faster reaction and movement. However large tank movement will increasingly become rare as they require massive logistics - well until fuel cells arrive. As tanks become more complicated and harder to kill other methods will be found to strike at the weak points. This is true of any sphere in conflict, armoured vests started being given to police then the cop killer round was developed. But while there is a need to have heavy fast and flexible firepower available that can take on soldiers in open mobile warfare the tank is here to stay.
One last word multi turrented and armed tanks will never succeed until they can be controlled by the tank commander, ogres do this by cyberbetics but unless your volunteering to have you brain stuck in a nutrient tank in a large armoured and vulnerable verhicle they arn't going to exist. As for whacky armour materials who knows but there will always be a way to cut through or you couldn't make a tank out of it.
