An ambitious, tireless editor could assemble a multi-volume anthology of obituaries for the Main Battle Tank. Weirdly, we just “celebrated” the 100th anniversary of the combat debut of the tank in the Battle of the Somme. If the tank is dying, it’s an especially protracted death.

MBTs will continue to be relevant until we develop a type of weapons system more effective at seizing and holding physical terrain. Unmanned aerial systems, precision munitions, and other emerging technologies are doubtlessly important, but they have very real limitations. Consider the problem in terms of tactical tasks: an MQ-9 Reaper can certainly overwatch, disrupt, degrade, or even destroy very small, precisely-defined objectives. Can it secure an objective? Occupy it? Seize? Of course not. An airborne or marine infantry battalion can certainly secure or occupy an objective, but its ability to seize it will depend upon how well-reinforced enemy defenses are. Defending against a well-led enemy counterattack will be harder still, especially if the enemy has any significant motorized or mechanized assets.

We forget that these much-discussed “low intensity” conflicts often begin as high-intensity conflicts that closely resemble the type of mechanized warfare we’re always eulogizing. We were hardly at “mission accomplished” in Iraq before we were informed we’d witnessed History’s Last Tank Battle. How long was it before M-1 Abrams were critical in supporting the Marines’ seizure of Fallujah? And how long after Fallujah would we wait before Russian T-72s brought the Republic of Georgia to its knees?

The M-1 is a formidable and adaptable platform, but we will need to replace it. We can begin making that investment now, or we can get our teeth kicked in the next time we need to seize and hold a piece of dirt.