[Blueflag]

I pulled a bit of a Lazmataz on this one -- I posted before reading the source article.

The projectile did penetrate the side skirt which is 'thin' composite armour.

Now, having admitted to just reading the article, ;-) lemme say this.

The role of heavy armour is not over until the role of heavy armour is voided. The role of heavy armour in a mechanized assault will persist, even if its relative invulnerability does not. (meaning the M1A1 was THE safest place to be, and still is, during an assault against heavily armed defenders.)

From a strategic and tactical standpoint, when you as a commander endeavour to attack and overtake a position and its defending forces, you need a mix of options from infantry to light armour to artillery to heavy armour. Heavy armour (meaning the heaviest on the field of battle) will always have a role in the right battle. Now, I agree that the future battles will need a greater proportion of more agile 'armoured' fighting vehicles (Bradley lights?) BUT the role of the MBT will never disappear from the Army.

That's my opinion. Add $3.50 to it and you have a latte.

[glorgau]

The projectile did penetrate the side skirt which is 'thin' composite armour.

Yeah, it probably wouldn't have made it through the frontal arc. Armor is much, much thicker up front (as it should be). That said, MBTs main role is to be able to take hits and destroy whatever is shooting at it. There is currently no better platform for that than the M1.

Having tanks like this allows us, and not the other guys, to define the battlefield.

[ASOC]

I would note that recycled T34s are still in use in some parts of the world. You can defeat a MBT IF you have the right weapon - if not, better have good running shoes.