Zero crew maintenance will never be effective. You'll just be doing what the Soviets are doing in Ukraine; abandoning $25M tanks when they throw a track. Or you

Zero crew maintenance will never be effective. You'll just be doing what the Soviets are doing in Ukraine; abandoning $25M tanks when they throw a track. Or you'll be dooming maintenance crews to a quick death. And you can't wave away the flaws of the Leo 1 as being too early for its time. The trend has been 180º in the opposite direction. Focusing on top attack weapons is missing the forest for the trees. There are numerous weapons that can destroy a tank: - Mines - Artillery, both unguided and guided - ATGMs, whether top attack or side. All can penetrate most armor if they hit. - SMAW/RPG etc - Air launched unguided rockets - Anti-tank grenades dropped by COTS drones - Ad infinitum Yet no military (including Ukraine) is saying they don't want tanks, only armchair generals who see another RMA in the mist. There's a saying "Ships are safe in a harbor, but that's not what ships are for." Trying to make sure a tank is invulnerable ends up being a fool's errand. Use them appropriately, and they'll be fine.