The difference between an apple and an orange matters a great deal if you're trying to bake an apple pie. It doesn't matter quite so much if you've been starved in a basement for 7 days.
What criteria are we using to judge the difference between a car and a tank? Which vehicle is better at achieving tactical objectives on a battlefield, or which one presents a greater ambient risk of death in everyday life?
On the other hand: is modern life conceivable without cars? Might modern warfare be conceivable without tanks? The performance of cheap anti-tank missiles suggests they may be on their way to the dustbin of history, just like the era of armored knight dominance of battlefields was felled by innovations involving longbows, crossbows, pikes, and hand cannons.
Perhaps you care deeply whether you're shot in the back of the head and kicked into a ditch by a thug whose uniform bears the insignia of a swastika or of a hammer-and-sickle.
Me? Don't care, not a distinction that feels relevant.
