by Artemy Sharapov
[REGNUM] For the past hundred years, the basis of any land army's combat power has been tanks - heavy armored vehicles with heavy weapons. They ruled the battlefields of World War II and were subsequently considered the main weapon for World War III.
However, the development of modern science, unmanned systems and hand-held anti-tank weapons has turned the tank from a hunter into a prey. And although armored vehicles still have a serious impact on the course of military operations, military experts around the world are increasingly asking whether armored forces have a future or will they suffer the fate of the cavalry - being forced out of the battlefield by more modern technologies.
The problems of modern tanks became especially clear against the backdrop of a special military operation in Ukraine, where armored vehicles from all over the world are being used.
Right before our eyes, practically online, changes are taking place that radically alter not only the appearance of steel monsters, but also determine their place in the armies of the world and our own armed forces.
DRONES VS. ARMORED VEHICLES
Globally, the development of reconnaissance means puts an end to old concepts of tank use. Several years ago, NATO command officially announced plans to create such a powerful satellite group that it would allow simultaneous surveillance of the entire surface of the globe. Therefore, the transfer of large concentrations of armored vehicles in our time is becoming an extremely difficult task.
A tank train is a very convenient target for a missile strike, which has been demonstrated more than once by Russian troops, destroying enemy forces during the SVO. In theory, it is possible to concentrate a large concentration of armored vehicles, transferring them in small batches of one or two vehicles. But it will be simply impossible to hide them near the front line due to the development of drones, which can track the movement of each tractor and each train at a distance of up to one hundred kilometers from the front line.
It is becoming practically impossible to concentrate a large tank fist that would go, “roaring with fire, sweeping away with the glitter of steel” through the enemy’s rear, notes military expert and reserve tank officer Alexander Mikhailovsky in a commentary to IA Regnum. But during the Cold War, it was assumed that it was precisely huge concentrations of armored vehicles that would have to march hundreds of kilometers across the radioactive plains of Europe after massive nuclear strikes.
The Soviet concept envisaged a "dash to the English Channel" from East Germany, the American one - a counterattack from the territory of the FRG. This strategy has been criticized before, but with the experience of the Central Military District it becomes obvious that the era of such "blitzkriegs" is a thing of the past.
"Probably the main result is that tanks are no longer a weapon for breaking through layered defense in the best traditions of the blitzkrieg. The armored monsters that used to rush through the enemy's rear and close the encirclement ring are no longer what they used to be. And this requires rethinking the concept of not only tanks as such, but also warfare in general," the expert notes.
THE CONCEPT OF THE "TURTLE TANK"
Even the use of a limited number of armored vehicles, down to single vehicles, today carries enormous risks. First of all, due to the development of unmanned technologies. Every tank spotted by a drone becomes a convenient target for artillery or anti-tank missile system operators. Therefore, armored vehicle crews operating on both sides of the front have to act according to the “hit and run” tactics. The slightest delay in position can cost the crew their lives.
In an interview with Regnum, Odessa resident Maksim Surovikin, who at that time headed the armored group of the Pyatnashka international brigade in Donetsk, spoke about the specifics of using his vehicles: supporting infantry during assaults and "roll-overs" plus working on targets identified by reconnaissance as mobile artillery. At the same time, the enemy in the person of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, who were then still sitting in the fortified area of Avdiivka, practically stopped using armored vehicles: their fate was predetermined in advance.
"They use equipment minimally, we burn it right away. Or take it away. You won't see any Leopards or Strikers here - nothing like what's in the Zaporizhzhya direction," said Surovikin, whose vehicles were mostly captured. Butthe drones themselves pose a much greater threat, and not just as a means of adjusting artillery fire.
At the early stage of the SVO, both sides used primitive copters equipped with a device for dropping a fragmentation grenade, a small munition. But such a threat was met with a simple but effective defense - equipping the tank with additional welded structures a la "visor" or, as it took root in social networks, "barbecue".
Initially, the tactics of tank destruction were built in two stages: immobilize it by blowing it up on a mine, force the crew to leave and throw a grenade into the open hatches. A minimal "visor" made of reinforcement allows you to protect the vehicle from attacks from above.
The design turned out to be so successful and simple that the “barbecues” are now welded onto Israeli tanks deployed in the Gaza Strip, and onto armored vehicles of the armed forces of India, Pakistan, and a number of other countries.
But after small commercial copters came heavy drones (for example, the famous Ukrainian "Baba Yaga"), which can drop 82 or even 100 mm caliber mines. Also, a new method of using anti-tank mines was adapted for drones - they are not laid in the path of the tank, but dropped on the vehicle from above.
FPV drones with a warhead from an anti-tank grenade launcher, essentially an RPG charge with wings, capable of hitting a tank not only from above, but also from any direction, acquired a military purpose. Therefore, the tank "visor" gradually grew and gradually covered the entire tank hull. This is how the "turtle tank" design was born.
"The basic concept of tank armor has not changed since World War II. The frontal armor is strong, but it is weaker at the top and rear. The development of drones has eventually forced the creation of another layer of armor to protect the vehicle's hull from a cumulative grenade launcher munition. But this is a temporary solution tailored to specific tasks. In general, the tank concept needs to be rethought," notes Alexander Mikhailovsky.
THE DEATH OF THE ABRAMS AND LEOPARD
Before the start of the SVO in Ukraine, there was a widespread opinion in the Western media that Soviet/Russian-style armored vehicles were too vulnerable and not adapted to the realities of modern combat. This conclusion was made based on their high losses in a number of Middle Eastern conflicts.
All these materials were illustrated with footage of destroyed T-72 tanks in Syria, Iraq and Libya. At the same time, Western-made tanks were held up as an example to Soviet machines.
However, with the start of deliveries of Western armored vehicles to Ukraine, the myth of the power of American or German tanks was shattered by the harsh realities of modern warfare. A video was recently published of a destroyed Leopard 2A4 tank near the town of Progress in Donbass. According to the Lostarmour portal, which analyzes data on armored vehicle losses in modern military conflicts based on open source materials, this is the 32nd tank of the Leopard 2 family lost by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
In 2023, Ukrainian troops received about a hundred vehicles of this model, provided by Germany, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden. That is, over a year of military operations, more than 30% of all delivered vehicles were out of order. American Abrams tanks did not have a better fate either. Last week, the 15th tank of this model out of more than 20 vehicles supplied by the United States was destroyed near the settlement of Vovchye. So the "sunset" of the era of modern tanks is an objective fact that requires a serious rethinking of the rules of war.
According to experts, there are three possible scenarios for the development of the modern tank concept. The first involves abandoning the tank as such. There is no need to make an expensive, heavy, and armored vehicle whose chances of surviving on the battlefield tend to zero. The second option is to create a concept for some kind of unmanned armored platform. Especially since various robotic combat systems are increasingly used in combat conditions today to solve a variety of tasks.
And the third is a serious rethinking of the existing tank concept and the creation of qualitatively new machines using new design solutions. As an example, the development of the domestic platform "Armata".
"I think that no one will give up tanks as such. You can't leave infantry without fire support. An unmanned tank is a separate topic altogether, but in short, we are simply not mature enough for this yet. So, in my personal opinion, the future belongs to vehicles with an unmanned turret and an armored capsule for the crew," Mikhailovsky sums up.
In the meantime, existing tanks are being covered with additional layers of armor and modernized for the rapidly changing realities of combat operations. Therefore, it is difficult to predict what armored vehicles will be like in six months or a year. But after the end of the SVO, all the experience gained will be studied in Russia and around the world and will definitely form the basis for promising future developments.