Purpose of the MBT

Quote:

...'the best defence against a tank is a tank' is simply not true.
Specialist anti-tank weapons are about 2.5 times better at destroying
tanks. Guderin freely admitted it.

Storr goes on further with some more statistics, but the main thrust of
his argument is above. this confuses me as I have always being taught that
the tank's reason for being is primarily to kill other tanks. I can agree
with Storr, but remain confused as to why MBTs are so predominant in many
forces.

- MBTs are the most flexible form of armour (as opposed to specialist
infantry-support tanks and dedicated missile vehicles), representing the
best possible outcome in a trinity of protection, mobility and firepower

- MBTs are the most suitable capability to accompany infantry into the
assault and are able to exploit through contested territory better than
any other form of AFV.

As such, although they are neither the most suited capability for a
dedicated infantry-support task or for vehicle-vehicle combat, they remain
the most flexible platform around and because of their flexibility are the
most suitable capability for the assault and exploitation functions in any
army (which, using Storr's paradigm of combat for those who are aware of
it, means that the tank is the most suitable capability we have to create
widespread shock amongst an enemy force).