[lapsed_pacifist]

A soldier is tens of thousands of dollars of training and gear. A bullet costs pennies. Thus soldiers have no place on the battlefield?

I think you should watch Chieftains video and read some military theory. Simply being vulnerable to less expensive weapon systems does not make a unit/vehicle/soldier useless or obsolete.

[horsawlarway]

Personally - I agree. I don't yet think we're at the point where tanks are obsolete.

That said... I think the niche the tank occupies right now is getting a LOT smaller.

Infantry screening is no longer enough. It's not just manpads and other anti-tank weaponry coming in from close quarters... it's gps guided missiles dropping on the tank from drones miles above.

We're definitely still going to see ground vehicles play an important part in combat, but I strongly suspect it's going to move back towards favoring nimble vehicles with specific utility. Not the current style of armored tanks.

[dsr_]

Indeed, if you value a soldier's life the same as a human's life, you really don't want them on the battlefield any more than absolutely necessary to defend against the invaders.

Spears and catapults and bows make your soldiers effective dozens of yards away from the enemy.

Rifles get your soldiers to a hundred, sometimes two hundred yards away.

Artillery and drones make your soldiers effective up to a few miles away.

The further away you can keep your soldiers while accomplishing your goals, the better.

[_carbyau_]

And yet, using artillery to wipe towns and cities from the map is a no no.

There is a balance here. Sometimes you have to risk the human.