Many of us have probably seen footage from the middle east showing guys with little to no training destroying Main Battle Tanks that cost millions of dollars to procure with cheap yet effective Anti Tank Guided Missiles. Given this reality many military analysts are questioning the logic behind fielding an expensive high tech vehicle against guys wearing flip flops armed with an Anti Tank Missiles. It is clear that large caliber guns are needed on the battlefield to destroy bunkers, buildings, and enemy armored vehicles however the current approach to doing so is in question as these vehicles often times lack air mobility and cannot operate in urban areas. Recent technological developments such as Active Protection Systems and Jammers have helped increase the survivability of MBT's by mitigating the chance of a successful hit by an ATGM. With the rise of these countermeasures the need for heavy tanks comes into question. Why mount these countermeasures onto something that weighs 60 tons when you could just use a lighter wheeled or tracked vehicle instead such as a striker armed with a 105mm gun? Why use 60 tons of steel instead of 20 or 30 tons if in the end the vehicle's sole source of protection against modern ATGM's will come from Active Protection Systems and Jammers?