In the modern era -- where practically every weapon is designed to kill the MBT -- tanks need to grow much larger or much smaller.

LARGER:
> Much thicker armor that can't be penetrated by conventional AT weapons.
> More room for anti-drone and anti-missile systems, e.g. CIWS, flak, etc.
> Stronger EW suite.
> More room for ordnance, munitions, and supplies. Can be used as a mobile depot for infantry, reducing reliance on those poor trucks that keep getting blown up.
> Much more redundancy. Multiple tracks, multiple compartments, multiple guns.
> Much better crew survivability.

smaller:
> Faster
> Cheaper
> Quiet variants can be run on battery power. (I know, I know. It's situational.)
> A more natural extension of the role of infantry
> Unmanned or single-manned. If it gets popped, it's not a disaster, build three more.
> Harder to see, harder to target, harder to hit.
> Swarm tactics.

That the German military is buying 2000 MBTs is the height of retardation. Wordwide military leadership, having taken orders all of their lives, is incapable of innovative or critical thinking. You could put Patrick S. Tomlinson or Chris-Chan in charge of the German military and they'd probably do a better job, lol.

weird that you would focus on the German military, when theyre one of the only militarys that use anything resembling the micro tank you spitball; with the weisel.

>>63946662
The Weisel is a good idea but could stand to be modernized. It just came out that they want to purchase a gorillion more Leopard 2s, though, which is mind-bogglingly stupid.

>>63946637 (OP)
>>63946680

The only problem with any really big is that it will need a very robust logistics network and maintenance crew to keep it going. Something very large breaks, it's effectively stuck until it can be repaired, just like the German Tiger tanks. And having many tiny and small tanks still requires a large logistical network.

I think the tanks nowadays are a good middle ground, that's why most everyone uses the same size. Big enough to cause a lot of damage and keep you relatively safe, but still small enough to be repaired easy and towed out.

>>63946680
Ok. And what if they purchase a gorillion Leopard 2A8s while also purchasing a gorillion anti-drone vehicles?

>>63946637 (OP)
You were saying?

>>63946695
Large tanks can have far more redundant systems, though, and much better defensive capabilities.
Worst case, your land fortress breaks, you have a static fortress that can hold the territory in its vicinity.
> Big enough to cause a lot of damage and keep you relatively safe
lol no.

>>63946662
>Merkava has german engine
>Leopard II
>The gepard
>The king tiger
>...

>>63946711
How are you going to transport your fortress tank. Did you ever think of that? And leaving your fortress tank behind enemy lines where it will be destroyed in no time at all is a quick way to rack up losses.

>>63946728
Break the tank into hull, turret, engine blocks and track sections sized for SPMTs or Schnabel wagons, ship them separately, then lift and join using ring cranes or gantry systems at the destination. From there, it has tracks.
And something like that moves the lines along with it.

>>63946728
Build a bigger delivery truck
>but what about roads?
Make those bigger too
>what about fuel?
Make the fuel bigger
>how are you gonna fix it?
Bigger tools
I'll take my check now, please

>>63946637 (OP)
The Germans already tried making giant everything and it simply didn't work. Square/cube law takes care of that.

I remember when I was a kid someone built an automatic mosquito killing turret, it used microphones to detect and triangulate on mosquitoes and then a powerful laser to burn their wings off. I have no doubt that in the future, something lightweight and automated will be used on vehicles to protect against light drones, probably using a machinegun. Even a powerful airgun could wreck those small drones.

Bigger drones are more of a croncern but at the same time they're much more expensive, so a Gepard could protect many tanks against those.