Congress forcing new tanks on military

[Sallow]

Well, there are 4 armor companies in South Korea, (56 tanks) as part of the only Brigade in Korea.. The rest of the 2nd Infantry Division are 3 Stryker Brigades at Ft Lewis, WA, and then the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii and Alaska has 2 Stryker, 1 Infantry and 1 Airborne Brigades.

Other places where tanks would be useful would be Syria and Iran.

Tanks are not so good for mountains and urban areas, but open country? They're very effective.
The problems with tanks are that they are not easily deployed..you can fit 1 in a C-17 and 2 in a C-5. That's 7 C-5s just to transport the tanks of an armor company (plus support vehicles etc)

In contrast, a C-130 can carry a Stryker (though range will be crappy) and a C-17 can carry 4 Strykers and a C-5 can carry 7. Obviously a Stryker is not as well armored as an Abrams, but the MGS variant has a comparable main gun.

You go up against a country with planes like the A10 and Tanks get chopped up quick.

In any case, deploying ground troops to fight against North Koreans is a fools errand.

Hence no real reason for new tanks.

"Everybody" once said we didn't need tanks anymore...but then came 73 Easting.

We actually don't.

We haven't fought a war to protect the US since the second world war.

After the deployment of thousands of nuclear warheads, invading the US would mean the end of civilization. So we are no longer in a defensive posture.

Everything now, is just a projection of American power.