A Russian tank using Russian "combined-arms" doctrine that sends me into a city completely unsupported? That's going to be a big "no" from me.
An American tank using American combined-arms doctrine? Well, it's not going to be a risk-free experience, but I'd rather be in the tank than be one of the bullet sponges who are fighting house-to-house to prevent the enemy bullet sponges from sticking an AT-4 out of a window.
As other people have noted, "survivability" doesn't really factor into military thinking so much as capabilities. Bullets are extremely lethal to infantrymen, but we still have infantry because infantrymen have capabilities that other equipment platforms do not have. The existence of machine guns doesn't remove the need for infantry; it just changes how they have to be used (more cover and concealment, more need for air, artillery, and tank support). The same is true for tanks - they have capabilities that no other platform can satisfactorily fulfill, so we will continue to have tanks even if anti-armor weapons become even more effective than they already are.
An American tank using American combined-arms doctrine? Well, it's not going to be a risk-free experience, but I'd rather be in the tank than be one of the bullet sponges who are fighting house-to-house to prevent the enemy bullet sponges from sticking an AT-4 out of a window.
As other people have noted, "survivability" doesn't really factor into military thinking so much as capabilities. Bullets are extremely lethal to infantrymen, but we still have infantry because infantrymen have capabilities that other equipment platforms do not have. The existence of machine guns doesn't remove the need for infantry; it just changes how they have to be used (more cover and concealment, more need for air, artillery, and tank support). The same is true for tanks - they have capabilities that no other platform can satisfactorily fulfill, so we will continue to have tanks even if anti-armor weapons become even more effective than they already are.