If there were full blown conflict between two modern armies we would quickly discover that most tank warfare would be suicidal. 150 tanks wouldn’t last a week against Russia because of the Kornet anti-tank missile. 50lbs of weapon that can hide in a hole by the road, a bedroom window, a barn, and takes out your 9 million dollar Abrams in few seconds for the cost of 12K. The flipside is true for the Russian tanks facing our Javelin or the French MILAN and other modern anti-tank weapons. The Iraqis even managed to take out a few Abrams in the first days of that war and they had no idea what they were doing and had only a handful of modern anti-tank weapons. Tanks are too easy to kill, too hard to maintain and too costly to replace. It will be great to have one near you for the time it lasts but they wont last long.
Thats funny, the Russians used tanks very effectively in the Ukraine this year, and the Ukrainians have modern ATGM’s, or modern enough.
And the same was said about tanks going back to the 1960’s - ATGM’s aren’t new. The ATGM’s back then could penetrate any tank in existence.
There are countermeasures against anything. And there are tactics to minimize any threat.
Bingo!
I saw something on the Military channel a few years back, where a single bomb was dropped hanging from a parachute and it dispensed 20 or 30 hockey puck like gizmos that each selected a tank and killed them from above. That kind of weapon prevents tank formations of the past. They are useful against ground troops that have no air power of any kind and a limited supply of anti tank weapons.
If we actually have half the weapons they show on the Military Channel, why would anyone pick a fight with us?
I fear carrier groups would fair little better in an all out war.