Everything, needs ground troops. Later to hold. And also properly identify.

Tanks in an Urban environment are becoming less suited to it. But they seige it even better. They have range. It is restricted in Urban settings unless it bombards. On the field, not in the air, they are an advancing army's advantage. They enclose, surround, and eliminate other armour and mechanics and dig and hold outs by competing ranges. They are impervious to most small arms and rifles, and many mines. Obviously weapons advance to combat them. But all combat needs multiple roles, and the ability to adapt to the problems faced by an evolving battlefield. Although tanks will likely always be a component of warfare. They are mobile.

In a newer autonomous age incoming. Ground troops are needed less. Robots replace front line operations and roles. But there will always be an opponent fighting with their flesh, and there won't be any balance to it.

There are few rules in war, and the people implementing them often think to cause less causalty, but they often cause far more disaster. Have some more guns instead. Try to shoot those bombs, and obviously any soldiers dropping them. Dying happens no matter what, because the alternative of surrendering is not the reason why people fight wars. So a question of the greater good arises, preventing a much larger war or conflict, where army's often have weapons of massive destruction. What forces surrender, a few lives, or an entire city refusing to capitulate, but instead defending it too death. There are no fixes or remedy to the death and the causalties caused. They can only be presumed to be lessened. An assumption of etiquette. Excuse me politely, do you mind dying quicker, death has no formality, it isn't polite, or do you heroically defend yourself until the last stone stands?

Everything, needs ground troops. Later to hold. And also properly identify.

Tanks in an Urban environment are becoming less suited to it. But they seige it even better. They have range. It is restricted in Urban settings unless it bombards. On the field, not in the air, they are an advancing army's advantage. They enclose, surround, and eliminate other armour and mechanics and dig and hold outs by competing ranges. They are impervious to most small arms and rifles, and many mines. Obviously weapons advance to combat them. But all combat needs multiple roles, and the ability to adapt to the problems faced by an evolving battlefield. Although tanks will likely always be a component of warfare. They are mobile.

In a newer autonomous age incoming. Ground troops are needed less. Robots replace front line operations and roles. But there will always be an opponent fighting with their flesh, and there won't be any balance to it.

There are few rules in war, and the people implementing them often think to cause less causalty, but they often cause far more disaster. Ave some more guns instead. Try to shoot the bombs. Obviously any soldiers dropping them. Dying happens no matter what, because the alternative of surrendering is not the reason why people fight wars. So a question of the greater good arises, preventing a much larger war or conflict, where people have weapons of massive destruction. What forces surrender, a few lives, or an entire city refusing to capitulate, but instead defending it, to die. There are no fixes or remedy to the death and the causalties caused. They can only be presumed to be lessened. An assumption of etiquette. Excuse me politely, do you mind dying quicker, death has no formality, it isn't polite, or do you heroically defend yourself until the last stone stands?