I see the point that in guerrilla conflicts such as the current theatres of operations in the middle east (as well as the past conflict in Mogadishu), armor is a huge asset, especially APCs in moving and protecting infantry, but the reason it is so effective is because for the most part the taliban, al queada and other terrorist organizations are just equipped with small arms, RPGs, and IEDs-- all of which our armored vehicles such as Bradleys, Strykers, and Abrams are very effective at defending against. However if Country X with more sophisticated weaponry (Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela just as examples) were to start something, I am curious as to how effective armor would be.
"there is some way to counter it" Even though technology is increasing across all fronts ,I may be wrong, but I don't see how an Abrams can exactly shoot a Javelin or a TOW out of the sky.
Sniping has always existed, and there are countermeasures to that, and air support has always existed, and there are countermeasures to that as well (AAA, SAMs, other aircraft) and no one can count on total air supremacy in a conventional war. I may be wrong, but I just see tanks as getting decimated in a more conventional conflict when the enemy can knock you out reliably from long distances without any sort of countermeasures. I guess supporting infantry would help greatly, but its seems likely that opposing forces would still be able to launch anti armor weapons effectively.
"I will say of all the future soldiers posting on this board Beat Navy is very well read in militaria. That is good! You will make a fine officer as your heart is already in the right place."
Thank you! I spend a lot of time watching military channel, reading etc and I love military history. Ive considered DSS as a major at USMA as it seems very interesting and applicable to a career in the Army.