More alternate ways to think about future armoured forces and the role of the tank within them. This time proposing reduced tank fleets due to the increasing capability of IFV-class armaments covering off most (and sometimes more) of what tanks bring #miltwitter 
Previous discussion (bit.ly/2K5XntT) offered the notion, recently proposed by John Cockerill at January's IAV conference, that 105 mm is a capable round for the vast majority, if not all, secondary tank targets, so future forces could look at a hi/lo 130/105mm fleet mix
As before, acknowledging that tanks excel utilising their extreme overmatch in lethality over most opposing vehicles to rapidly break through and then exploit via high mobility. This remains a hugely valuable mission, and one that we will enduringly need tanks to execute
However, the vast majority of targets can be readily prosecuted with a mix of medium calibre cannon and multimode missiles like Spike. A suitably equipped IFV could therefore offer a swiss army knife of weapons to cover most targets and situations without any need for a tank
Modern ATGM significantly outrange direct fire guns and can be directed from the firing platform or designated by an off-board sensor onto a non-line-sight target. With such missiles pervasive across the formation, calls can be answered by the nearest IFV, indirectly if necessary
B-19 Kurganets-25 is perhaps the apex of this trend to date. Armed with the Epokha unmanned turret (replaced the earlier KBP Universal Combat Module we've seen before), it has 57mm AGL, 7.62mm coax, 2 kinds of ATGM and hard kill APS, in an unmanned design
Main gun is a modified variant of LShO -57 firing 57 mm rounds incl. HE-FRAG/HESH and APFSDS. Coax is standard PKTM. Turret mounts 2x Kornet and n 8-round Bulat ATGM launcher. This is a massive amount of firepower for any vehicle and capable of engaging essentially any target
Protection is provided by Afghanit combined hard/soft kill system as well as an extensive passive/reactive armour arrangement. ERA array modules are used to assist flotation, as B-19 is fully amphibious too, unlike almost all other contemporary tracked IFV, esp. Western
Is the tank dead as a result? No. Still an enduring need for a heavily armoured and overmatch armed direct fire vehicle for anti-armour exploitation, and with more stowed kills against high end threats like enemy MBT/HIFV
But as with the 105/130 argument, in majority of scenarios a comprehensively armed IFV would offer same or better tailored and flexible response to threats, at greater ranges and more availability of those responses to units due to them being more pervasive across the force
In many aspects a heavily armed IFV following the Epokha approach is more capable than a tank in almost all circumstances. Lighter, smaller and thus more deployable and tactically mobile. More flexible weapon set covering a greater spectrum of targets and more nuanced effects
Budgets rarely get larger. More flexible vehicles allows fewer vehicles, or at least a fewer distinct fleets. Those unable to afford large armoured formations can get highly capable IFV and have much the same or better capability as those with legacy IFV/MBT fleets
The controversial discussion question then - who needs a tank if you have a Kurganets? Again disclaimer these are not recommendations but alternatives to stimulate debate outside the norm /end
