> Given some of the results from the war in Ukraine, what's the latest viewpoint on tanks in modern warfare? You're only asking part of a question. It's not wh

> Given some of the results from the war in Ukraine, what's the latest viewpoint on tanks in modern warfare? You're only asking part of a question. It's not whether the tank as a piece of equipment is universally useful, but does an army have a battlefield doctrine that uses tanks well. A tank in general is a useful piece of equipment. It's a bunch of firepower, sensors, and radios all under armor while being highly mobile. A tank can see enemy forces a long ways away, shoot at them, then coordinate with friendly forces to also shoot at the enemy. Tanks however aren't invulnerable. They also end up with poor situational awareness when the crew is all buttoned up under armor. So tanks just sent out by themselves with no infantry support find themselves big obvious targets for enemy infantry with effective anti-tank weapons. If an army's doctrine keeps tanks in good repair, well supplied, and uses them in concert with supporting forces they can be amazingly effective. If instead an army's doctrine doesn't value logistics and presumes tanks are invulnerable they can be laughably ineffective. Russia has been demonstrating laughably terrible battlefield doctrine. They're losing as many tanks to their own ineptitude as they are to enemy action. Their performance isn't an indictment against tanks as a weapon but Russia's particular doctrine and military practices.