Since WW2, most ground combat embraces the concept of combined arms. The idea is that you use aircraft, artillery, armor and infantry in coordinated action. Using both combined arms and mobile warfare was exemplified by the wide swing by the Army in Gulf War 1.
As for tanks having been eclipsed, it does not appear that any army in the world believes that given that tank acquisition and improvement is happening pretty much everywhere.
We’re talking about detail and different levels of thoroughness here. For the first wave of a blitzkrieg, sending 20,000 tanks rampaging five hundred miles deep into enemy territory would represent the first sweep and thrust (think Warsaw Pact invading NATO in, say, the 1980s.)
The infantry would be the second wave - mopping up, being much more thorough, occupying, etc.
Sending in tanks without infantry is a good way to get rid of your tanks.
This would be the same tank war where one dude with one tank (sometimes two) stopped pretty much an entire army:
I think what was meant in the article you read about tanks being useless in today’s wars is referring to urban combat. Too many places to hide and get ambushed. Also a lot easier for someone to get above and behind the tank with an rpg where its most vulnerable… The engine. There’s all kinds of videos on YouTube of T-72’s and BMP’s getting destroyed in Syria.
Once upon a time, there was this guy named Rommel…
I read the book “We were soldiers once…” about the Battle for Ia Drang in Vietnam. IIrc, in essence, the reason the US troops held out the Vietnamese in the first half of the battle was artillery. The US troops were massively outnumbered but were able to call in a hailstorm of artillery at crucial moments, blanketing the area just outside the US lines. In effect, the US troops were just bait luring the Vietnamese into the open to be taken out by shellfire.
The movie downplays this aspect I seem to recall.
This thread has made me think - perhaps these are the last of the great main battle tanks.
Last century battleships and heavy cruisers with 16 inch guns ruled the waves. Yet today I don’t think there is an operating battleship in any navy.
Apparently the Army didn’t want any more M1 Abrams.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120307/DEFREG02/303070011/U-S-Army-Congress-No-New-Tanks-Please
True enough regarding battleships. They’ve all been retired by now, along with probably all of the gun cruisers. Thanks to the capabilities of modern anti-ship missiles, a destroyer and a cruiser and a battleship are all more or less on even ground in terms of firepower (the few battleships that served into the 1990s had been refitted to carry batteries of long-range guided missiles along with their guns).
Tanks are not the weapons needed for highly urbanized combat…too vulnerable and ineffective. At the same time, even in an asymetical war, with the right terrain, combined arms of infantry, armor and artillery are still a deadly combination.
There is a vast difference between fighting a war and pacifying a country.