Something like the Stryker may be able to take out a T-72 from a safe range, but when it moves forward with the infantry it will be a sitting duck to RPGs, LAWs, etc. This type of vehicle reminds me of the pre-WW II U.S. theory that tank killers need not be heavily armored since they can hit hard against tanks, move fast to avoid getting hit, and are not in the infantry support business. What happens in the real world? They are indeed needed to support the infantry, or they get ambushed, and their thin skin gets them killed regardless of their speed. Air support and standoff weapons are getting more and more lethal, but MBTs will be there in 2024. They may well be semi or fully automated and therefor much smaller, but they will be there. You can't win a war without control of the air, but you won't be able to assume control on the ground without tanks (and of course infantry). Numbers are already irrelevant. A group of state-of-the-art MBTs, with support, is much like a Roman Legion ripping through a tribal army. This (and lack of stomach for the fight by much of the regular Iraqi Army) was why one U.S. division and a Marine Expeditionary Force ripped through their forces like tissue paper.