The type of vehicle the US military became convinced was optimal for a fight against a near-peer foe.
The type of vehicle that the US realized was essential to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The type of vehicle the US military became convinced was optimal for a fight against a near-peer foe.
The type of vehicle that the Ukraine realized is essential for a fight against a near-peer foe.
rinse repeat
We have already tried this over and over again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_gun_motor_carriage
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_British_Army_in_North_Africa_1942_E12643.jpg
It works... until you need armor...
Also see the story of the M10 Booker which is one of the most recent proofs that light tanks are mostly a fantasy because armor sucks to carry but even still you need it otherwise you cannot fight...
Such a platform “sounded great on paper, but as the system progressed through the development process, it became something that, well, maybe we can only get it on a C-17,” he said. Then the requirements changed again “to, well, it doesn’t need to be airdroppable,” which “kind of negates” the original purpose of the platform.
“If it’s not airdroppable, how is it going to be going in alongside … the airdroppable forces themselves?” Haelig said. “So, requirements creep is obviously a problem.”
^ they wanted light and fast but found they had to keep slapping on more armor until they just had a mediocre, critically underarmored and pointless main battle tank.