But, in my opinion, these are just rumors spread by people who like to chat about dramatic topics, and nothing more.
I disagree with the statement that anti-tank guns are more expensive. A gun is still a gun, and a multiple launch rocket system is an entire expensive system.
Well, a gun and a multiple launch rocket system are different things. Of course, they cannot be compared because they have different purposes.
Since we've strayed a bit from the topic and are discussing methods of fighting enemy tanks, guns are becoming increasingly relevant. The fact is that modern defense systems can easily destroy anti-tank missiles launched from helicopters, or at least knock them off course – such systems are now widely used. But this trick doesn't work with shells – they don't contain any electronics. Bang-bang, and that's it. :)
The only question is about some improvement of this principle. Besides, shells are much cheaper compared to missiles.
And in general, in the modern world, almost no one fights with tanks. If we don't take into account the periodic deployment of tanks by Israel in Palestinian territories or the capture of Baghdad by the United States in April 2003. Well, and now there may of course be tanks in Baghdad, but they will not be able to do anything in real street battles – they are too clumsy.
Well, this is a complex issue. :) And, by the way, as practice shows, having powerful weapons systems does not guarantee victory in modern warfare. In the same Iraq, militant Islamists have no tanks, helicopters, or multiple launch rocket systems. And yet, the heavily armed Americans and their allies have been chasing them through basements and attics for years, suffering constant losses. And they are not maintaining any order in the occupied country.
As they say, it is most difficult to defeat an unorganized enemy. :)
Wüst und leer und ohne Segen.
Hier bin ich durch dich gefangen,
Muss für dich durchs Feuer gehen.
Du siehst mich in Flammen stehen,
Glühend will ich dich empfangen.