Is heavy armor outdated on the modern battlefield?

Only if every vehicle involved in any operation or convoy can move fast!

Just like the Military, during a lull they always wonder if it is necessary, BUT let the defecation hit the occulating rotator and who do they call. I saw this during my 27 year career. Yes it is loud and impressive, but nothing makes a better statement than 70 tons of mean firepower. Sometimes you need a scalpel and sometimes a sledgehammer. Best to have both at the ready. BTW I love the picture. My wife used to call it "Your 70 ton girlfriend", cant say I disagree. Was a Tanker my entire career. Loved being a 1SG (then a OPS SGM) except for the fact I had to give up my TC position.

As long as the rest of the world has heavy armor, we must maintain tanks. You can't go to a gun fight with a knife.

F.O.G. missiles represent a grave danger to tanks. Tanks are going to need an integral anti-missile system one of these days.

I dont think heavy armor will ever go away. May not need them all the time, but its nice to know that they are around just in case we need them. Kinda like artillery

Depends on the fight. But as long as the enemy has tanks, so will we...

Unless you've used them or seen them in combat. You have no idea.

I absolutely agree with just about everyone else here: heavy armor is not outdated and very likely never will be. In a conventional fight, there is no asset capable of providing highly-mobile, lethal firepower at long range like a tank. When MG McMaster was still the MCoE commandant, he spoke to my BOLC class about the future of Armor. He had a few good points, one of which was, "The IBCT is nimble, which is one of it's strengths, but it lacks mobile protected firepower. I mean, elves are nimble, but you don't send one to kick someone's ass. That's what the ABCT is for." Even recent history bears that out. Look at the 2003 thunder runs that took BIAP and then Baghdad itself - perfect examples of how an audacious commander can use an armored formation to seize and hold territory from the enemy. The Marines used tanks in southern Afghanistan to great effect, as did the Germans and Canadians, and it goes without saying that Russians and Ukrainians are using tanks.

Also, since you brought up appropriations, the Army did not tell Congress it doesn't to continue production of tanks. It told Congress that it doesn't want to build any new M1A2s for the next several years because there's no need while they finish updating the entire Abrams fleet to the M1A2 SEP v2 variant. The reason GD (the company that builds the tanks) pushed Congress not to stop building new tanks, is that the cost of shutting down the plants that build new tanks and then reopening them in five years is more expensive than keeping them open with a small level of production.

Armor will never be outdated unless no one has armor

Now the tank itself as we know it today may become obsolete. But the concept of armored assets on the battlefield will never be outdated. I don't think tanks as we know them will always be there. I am sure in the future something may come to do the same mission. But the idea of just tanks itself not enough. We have to look at the concepts of warfare in which the tanks are being used also. If you send tanks against the US Army then you are making a very poor decision. I don't care if it is the Russians with their fancy tin can. Our control of the battle space and air and prevent enemy tanks from having really much of an impact.

Just as the infantry will never become obsolete or outdated. How we employ them and what they look like will change. But the concept of sending in ground forces will never change nor will the supporting assets.

Absolutely not! The tank will always have a place in our army. The MGS can't possibly usurp the role of the tank on today's battlefields. This COIN doorkicker period will soon be over. I will admit that we will never see the numbers of tanks that we had in the Cold War but we will always be relevant.

Stay on the tank.