Purpose of the MBT?

[William F. Owen]

I fail to see that 'conceptual use' in a Tiger2, Chaffee, Pzkpfw III or T-34.

Are you confusing concept with design? Everything those tanks were designed to do, was being done in WW1. I would further suggest that the Tiger2 was a failed concept, and poorly designed as a result.

The idea/concept of an MBT is an outgrowth from WWII. No more, infantry & cruiser tanks, no more light, medium & heavy tanks.

Light, Medium and Heavy, all exist today, and never went away. They have merely morphed, from what they were in WW1.

Actually, what it does best is to exploit, which relegates infantry to a "tank support weapon".

So show me 8-10 + times where unsupported armour successfully exploited to gain ground and hold it? The historical records shows this as very rare and often leading to sever tank losses.

Guys, I am not writing my Thesis here on a bulletin board. OK, my bad for letting the cat out of the bag, but I am merely trying to get away from the "I love tanks" school of history.