I'm slightly more cynical than you when it comes to the "tank controversy".
1. There is no controversy.
2. The last war was fought mostly by infantry and a lot of spec ops with tanks providing a supporting role. If the the old quote about wars is true, that "the next great war will not be fought like the last one...", then the next war will involve a lot of mechanized forces fighting large scale tank battles.
3. The generals that tell you that "we don't need more tanks" live a lifestyle of comfort that is totally dependent upon them agreeing 100% of the time on important issues (like which weapons systems we need/don't need) with the politicians who hired them. Their word can't be trusted.
4. The current batch of politicians (especially those in charge of Defense/War departments) in the West think "Call of Duty" is a real reflection of how wars are fought, don't know an AK-47 from a semiautomatic rifle, have a boss that has 14 other budget priorities that get them more votes (manned space flight not being one of them) and have their countries mired in debt/bad economies. Worse, some of them actually believe that some countries can be talked to death and out of being bad people and think that a standing army is largely unnecessary.
5. Much like economists, you lay a 100 "defense analysts" end to end and they will all point in a different direction. When you hear a general or a politician claiming their views against tanks are supported by defense analysts, what they are saying is true. Defense analysts also say we need the same number of tanks, more/better tanks, and one or two think that getting rid of the horse cavalry was a bad idea.
1. There is no controversy.
2. The last war was fought mostly by infantry and a lot of spec ops with tanks providing a supporting role. If the the old quote about wars is true, that "the next great war will not be fought like the last one...", then the next war will involve a lot of mechanized forces fighting large scale tank battles.
3. The generals that tell you that "we don't need more tanks" live a lifestyle of comfort that is totally dependent upon them agreeing 100% of the time on important issues (like which weapons systems we need/don't need) with the politicians who hired them. Their word can't be trusted.
4. The current batch of politicians (especially those in charge of Defense/War departments) in the West think "Call of Duty" is a real reflection of how wars are fought, don't know an AK-47 from a semiautomatic rifle, have a boss that has 14 other budget priorities that get them more votes (manned space flight not being one of them) and have their countries mired in debt/bad economies. Worse, some of them actually believe that some countries can be talked to death and out of being bad people and think that a standing army is largely unnecessary.
5. Much like economists, you lay a 100 "defense analysts" end to end and they will all point in a different direction. When you hear a general or a politician claiming their views against tanks are supported by defense analysts, what they are saying is true. Defense analysts also say we need the same number of tanks, more/better tanks, and one or two think that getting rid of the horse cavalry was a bad idea.