"Tanks are ceremonial items at this point, at least against a sophisticated NATO-like enemy. This is just a propagandist display, something Russians are prone t

"Tanks are ceremonial items at this point, at least against a sophisticated NATO-like enemy. This is just a propagandist display, something Russians are prone to do." I agree with your second point, but not with the first. Armor is useful for claiming and holding territory, especially in the face of infantry. Yes, AT armament has come a long way; I've personally observed the effect of Western arms against Soviet-made armor. But not every opponent will have air supremacy to fly ground attack assets with impunity. And not every soldier equipped with an AT weapon will fire it successfully. And some tanks will be equipped with reactive armor that will work as intended. Armor is not yet at the stage of horse-mounted cavalry, and will likely always have some role in modern military forces. Consider the switch to carrier-based forces the U.S. Navy underwent in WW2: it was a paradigm shift that led to inevitable retirement of the battleship class, but it has yet to eliminate the need for heavy guns or armored ships.