Oh please, you're holding up the Egyptian Army in 1973 as an example of the state of modern anti-tank warfare? I've heard of ridiculing military leaders for always being ready to fight the last war, but you're going back several wars . . . .
I've seen it's affect on training with friendly grunts who simply have never been around tanks. The first time we charged, these guys litterly dropped their weapons and ran...ran for their lives, as if this was real.
Let's try that training session again, this time with experienced grunts and inexperienced tank crews. While they try to find the ignition keys, the troops point and aim.
When the troops are ten miles behind lines, watching the tank attack over a video monitor, do they still run away? Or do they pick up the Nintendo-style controller, press a button, and say, "Game Over!" That's where anti-tank weapon technology is headed.
A $400 dollar missile can take out a chopper, but look what a chopper can do.
Oh please. In Afghanistan, a band of ignorant peasants were able to bring down the best armored helicopter gunship fleet in the world, and they were armed only with Stinger missiles. As one Russian pilot complained, after they started losing a gunship a day, "It's just not fun anymore."
The Tank Chauvinists get their way only by making sure the supply of anti-tank weapons is kept limited to a fraction of the number of tanks. It's like in the Navy, where the battle simulations are always biased so that it's made to look like surface ships actually have a chance against aircraft and submarines.
As long as we're fighting backwards Egyptians and Iraqis in the last century, the tank's a great weapon. The next war may not be fought against backwards Egyptians and Iraqis, and unless time travel is invented, won't be fought in the last century.
Do you think Palestinians who are brave enough to strap dynamite to themselves will run when they see a tank?
I propose we rename the MBT the MBC -- for Main Battle Coffin, because that's where they're headed. Game Over, Dude!
What the hell does this mean?
As for my Egyptian example, you obviously missed the whole point. Nough said. It was to demonstrate that new and inventive tactics and weapons can usually be overcome by new and inventive uses of old weapon systems. Few antitank infantry weapons will do more then disable a tank and then the AT crew usually dies when the tank turns its guns on it. Two tanks togather can scratch each others backs with machine guns to keep grunts off of them...then you get a term (now stop me if you've never heard of this) Combined Arms. The Panzerfast are there to make sure those squirly grunts with the AT missiles never get up to fire them...what happened to the egyptians "new" tactic. As for your remote missiles 1. they cost a lot 2. they can be jammed 3. they can be tracked and counter fire delivered.
The US lost 7,000 choppers in Vietnam...funny they are still used and they killed quite a few Vietcong and allowed light grunts to be quickly dilvered and extracted and heavy fire power (as in Samolia) put down on the enemy.
Do a better study of Combined Arms and come back and talk.