re: British Army admits Russia could destroy their only remaining fighting unit...

Again, the fact you can kill tanks with ATGMs is no different than the fact you can kill fighters and bombers with SAMs. There has never in the history of armored warfare been a time where tanks had zero worries about antitank weapons facing them on the battlefield. The same is true of fighters and bombers as well. Just because a weapons system can be destroyed does not mean it's obsolete. If that were true, then every weapon system is now and has been obsolete since the day it was introduced. Infantry is obsolete because men can die. Artillery is obsolete because cannons, howitzers, and missile launchers can be destroyed.

The fact is tanks are as important today as they have ever been. They are an integral part of any combined arms operation. Any Force facing another modern force has to have armor for them to have any prayer of success.

As I've already pointed out, there are capabilities armor gives that no other weapons system can provide. If armies tried going to war without armor and fight each other with just infantry, artillery, and air power all they will do is recreate the trench warfare phase of WWI because neither side will be able to breach the other's defenses. That's the main thing armor does that no other force, on ground or in the air, can ever hope to achieve. Armor gives you the "breakthrough". Armor gives you the ability to take advantage of the breakthrough be striking deep and fast in the enemy's rear area taking out reserve forces, supply lines, and command and control centers. Infantry and artillery can and do support armor in doing this but infantry and artillery can't in and of themselves do this job. Air power can and does support armor in doing this but air power can't in and of itself do this job. It takes all these elements working together to win on a modern battlefield.

I think the reason many here have fallen for the lie that tanks are obsolete is they think the "low intensity conflicts" we've had in the Middle East the past 15 or so years actually represent the future of warfare. This is a huge mistake on their part. Yes, there will be these types of conflicts and there does need to be a force trained to fight such a conflict because it is very different from a conventional war. But as long as there are things such as countries, there will be wars between them. And in those wars a force equipped and trained primarily to fight a counterinsurgency low intensity conflict is virtually worthless.