Dead II.

This is coolbert:

Conclusion.

Yet more with regard to the obsolescence of the modern tank.

The tank is dead? Is it? Once more from the Soviet era defector Suvorov:

"The argument used by tank's detractors is simple - - 'Just look at the anti tank rockets - - at their accuracy and at their armor-piercing capability!' But this argument does not hold water. the anti-tank rocket is a defensive weapon - - part of a passive system. The tank, on the other hand is an offensive weapon. Any defensive system involves the dispersal of forces over a wide territory, leaving them strong in some places and weak in others. And it is where thy are weak that the tanks will appear, in enormous concentrations. Even if it were possible to distribute resources equally, this would mean that no one sector would have enough."

Suvorov is taking into consideration here the Soviet experience from the Second World War. Massive 'concentrations' of tanks [in the Soviet model tank divisions, tank armies and groups of tank armies] attacking en masse with prodigious numbers. Attack with tanks at a weak spot, concentrated and focused energy, armor deployed as a passive weapon of war. Attack with resolve and determination, almost heedless of loss, creating a rupture of the enemy defense with a BREAKTHROUGH as the goal. Flood an area with those prodigious numbers of tanks and the defender very quickly finds themselves in dire straits.

CONSIDER CORRECTLY SO NOT SO MUCH THE RELATIVE INVULNERABILITY OR VULNERABILITY OF THE TANK BUT THE MANNER WITH WHICH EMPLOYED ON THE BATTLEFIELD. HARDLY IS THE TANK "DEAD"?

coolbert.