I wish it was that logical, but the tanks aren't going to make sense in future wars either. They're just too heavy. They previously had to re-enforce bridges in Europe so that the tanks could act as a defense if Russia invaded.
We sold some of them to Australia, and they struggled to get them off of the docks as the trains and bridges couldn't handle the weight.
Unsurprisingly, the military has asked for lighter tanks.
Eh, until we have drone-bots that can perform at nearly a human level, we'll still need to have a physical presence, and there's roughly nothing as dangerous or safe (for the users) as a brand-new tank. They're heavy because of the shielding - if it weren't necessary, they'd just be lighter.
As it is, we do also have lighter military vehicles - basically retrofitted F250/350s with a shitload of steel bolted on. They're great in many instances, but sometimes a tank is just what you want.
How will a tank that you can't get to the battlefield help? That truly is not a joke or exaggeration. They are above the weight limit of many bridges, without any other vehicles on the bridge. They are just that heavy.
C5s can also transport them easily. I... don't know if C17s can, but I assume not? Maybe though. If so, they're not a problem at all, if you really want 'em.
But also remember tanks are tanks - they're meant to drive over all kinds of nonsense. It might be something of a technical roadblock if there's an impassable ravine, but there are still many, many instances where they'll be useful.
IMO we'll see them fall out of favor heavily if we start doing more mountainous island warfare.
Edit: I was curious so I looked it up, and there are a number of options:
1. Shore up/reinforce the bridge you want to cross with temporary structures
2. Just fill the damn terrain if it's a narrow ravine
3. Build a quick ferry
4. There are apparently literal armored vehicle-launched bridges (AVLBs)
During the cold war, American taxpayers ended up paying for bridges to be rebuilt in Europe so that theheavy tanks could defend against a Russian invasion. Now that the border is further East, they're busy rebuilding more bridges (not US paid this time): https://united24media.com/latest-news/maybe-this-europe-to-r...
They do not believe the tanks will be able to get there in time without doing that.
But that only gets you mobility in allied nations willing to spend billions on infrastructure.
You may have responded before seeing the rest of my comment edit - there are many methods for crossing some bridged area.
Either way, we can always just... scout a route ahead of time which doesn't take us straight to a dead-end. We probably already do this with satellites in a matter of minutes or hours nowadays.
It's... obviously better to just trust the roads are good to go, but you can never trust that in enemy territory. Even if the bridge is "sufficiently strong", you don't know if it was booby-trapped by the enemy.
We sold some of them to Australia, and they struggled to get them off of the docks as the trains and bridges couldn't handle the weight.
Unsurprisingly, the military has asked for lighter tanks.