The massive and somewhat surprising destruction of Russian tanks in the Ukraine war may lead some war planners to question the long-term utility of the main battle tank. Hundreds of them have been destroyed by enterprising Ukrainian defenders armed with anti-armor weapons and the tactical proficiency to ambush and destroy incoming Russian formations.
Resourceful and a Will to Fight
There are many reasons for such tank failures, perhaps the largest simply being Ukrainian tenacity and “will to fight.” Ukrainians fighting Russian tanks are also credited with using advanced and highly-successful tactics such as hit-and-run ambush-style attacks using terrain, buildings, or narrowly configured passageways such as bridges or intersections to stage successful attacks.
Ukrainians are credited with using dispersed, dismounted units of fighters able to both decentralize and yet still bring precision and lethality against Russian armor with weapons such as the Javelin anti-tank missile.
Indeed, Russia’s many observable tactical failures, poorly combined arms maneuvers, and a somewhat inept combat approach can explain why large numbers of Russia’s tanks have been destroyed, yet Ukrainian proficiency, resolve, and tactical ability have definitely been large factors.
Upgraded anti-armor weapons with enhancements such as greater range, targeting accuracy, and explosives have also likely been a factor in Ukraine’s success against Russian tanks.
Weapons developers around the world have taken notice of Ukrainian success with these weapons and tactics. The Marine Corps Force Design 2030, for example, initially called for a large reduction in heavy armor in its plans for a future force.
The text of the Corps’ Force Design 2030 document specifically cites developments in Ukraine as an indicator that heavy armor may prove less critical in future wars to a certain extent given the potential vulnerability. Larger amounts of heavy armor were put back in the plans, yet the Ukraine situation has greatly impacted thinking.
Networked, AI-Enabled U.S. Army Tanks
There is and still will be a critical role for heavy armor when it comes to future combat, provided all armor is correctly networked and defended. For instance, if deployed with advanced networking, command and control, and an ability to operate with unmanned systems, tanks could prove extremely decisive in future wars. They could operate forward-positioned armed drones able to launch attacks with human direction or conduct reconnaissance missions in enemy areas without increasing risks to soldiers.
The U.S. Army, for example, is using advanced manned-unmanned teaming wherein manned armored vehicles operate unmanned ground and air vehicles, bringing survivable, mobile command and control into high-threat environments.
If sufficiently upgraded with long-range, high-fidelity thermal sights, active protection systems, and AI-enabled targeting and navigation, heavy tanks could prove extremely impactful in great power war. They could not only help breach the perimeter of enemy formations but also provide supportive fire for advancing infantry.
Many Russian tanks were likely not upgraded and somewhat dated or poorly maintained, and many Soviet-era T-72s and T-80s are known to be more vulnerable to top-down attack. Without hemispheric active protection systems, Russian tanks have proven extremely vulnerable to top-down attacks from anti-armor weapons fired from elevated terrain or high buildings.
This would suggest that, if properly deployed and defended, advanced U.S. Army tanks have been upgraded to the point where they would not only be considered useful in a great power war but actually deemed critical to victory.
MORE: World War III – Where Could It Start?
MORE: A U.S.-China War Over Taiwan Would Be Bloody
Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
