Armored Warhorse: The Relevance of Tanks in the Modern Battlefield
Tanks have been a cornerstone of ground warfare since their introduction during World War I. They revolutionized the way battles were fought, dominating the battlefield and becoming the king of modern land battles. However, as time passed, new anti-tank measures were developed to counter their effectiveness.
In its early days on the battlefield of World War I, anti-tank measures were taken by the usage of field artillery, anti-tank rifles, and heavy machine guns equipped with armor-piercing rounds. Yet, the presence of those anti-tank measures does not stop tanks from breaking through the trenches in France and Belgium.
Today, the anti-tank measures have far evolved from their “great grandparents” in World War I. The advent of new advanced technologies to counter tanks on the battlefield, such as loitering munitions (kamikaze drones), top-attack anti-tank guided missiles, and precision artillery munitions, has led some to question the relevance of tanks in modern warfare.
The high media exposure of recent conflicts such as the Nagorno-Karabakh War and the War in Ukraine where videos of tank destruction regularly circulate the internet also only reinforces the view that tanks are obsolete. Nevertheless, the same recent conflicts have also shattered the notion of tanks becoming obsolete. This article explores why tanks remain a critical asset in contemporary warfare, examining their evolution, capabilities, and performance in recent conflicts.
The Role of Tanks on the Modern Battlefield
Tanks of the Past
In World War I, existing towed field guns were unable to move close enough to the frontlines in order to provide a highly accurate direct fire support. They were also unable to keep up with the advancing infantry in an offensive operation. Due to the absence of direct fire support and cover, the advancing infantry would suffer heavy losses while crossing the No Man’s Land. The depleted manpower would render them ineffective in advancing a few more kilometers down the enemy line if they ever managed to breakthrough. It also made the overall breakthrough time longer and gave the enemy time to react. The high losses inflicted on the forward-most units meant more units in reserve were needed to take over the role of breaking through, resulting in the larger required manpower for each offensive operation.
Tanks were then created to overcome the problems encountered in static trench warfare. They provided a protected mobile direct fire support capability that was badly needed to break the trench warfare stalemate. Tanks were to take the role of spearheading any offensive operation, eliminating any enemy strongpoints using their cannons and punching a hole in the enemy line for the infantry to exploit further, all the while providing infantry cover with their protected nature.
Tanks play a multifaceted role on the modern battlefield. They possess unique capabilities that make them indispensable assets for ground operations. Tanks serve as mobile firepower platforms, capable of engaging enemy armored vehicles, fortifications, and infantry positions with their powerful main guns. They provide crucial support to infantry units during offensive operations, breaching enemy defenses and facilitating rapid advances. Additionally, tanks offer invaluable protection to infantry, serving as armored shields during urban combat. Their presence instills confidence in ground forces and helps maintain momentum on the battlefield.
Lessons from Recent Conflicts:
The Nagorno-Karabakh War and the War in Ukraine provide valuable insights on the performance of tanks in modern battlefield.
A New Form of Threat
The Nagorno-Karabakh War showed for the first time the threat of relatively small and cheap loitering munitions against heavily-armored tanks. Recognizing the weakness of a tank’s thin roof armor, loitering munitions have proven capable of destroying even the most modern tank in the Armenian Army’s arsenal using a small shaped-charge warhead. The presence of loitering munitions on the battlefield also means that there is a new anti-tank measure that is relatively cheaper to operate and has a way longer range than even the most capable ATGM in service. It even has the range to strike targets behind the frontlines. Small modified FPV and common commercial drones that can carry explosives have also proven to be more lethal than loitering munitions. Their overall smaller size makes them harder to detect on the battlefield using electro-optical (EO) sights or even common air defense radar. They can easily drop explosives on an unsuspecting tank’s opened hatch behind enemy lines without being noticed.
As seen previously in the past, tanks are able to be integrated with a capability to counter anti-tank threats. Russians, after closely watching the Nagorno-Karabakh War, created the now-so-called “Cope Cage” to counter the new threat posed to tanks by drones and loitering munitions. Cope Cage is simple slat armor, commonly in the shape of bars welded together or wire mesh similar to a cage’s wall, mounted on top of a tank’s turret. The main purpose of Cope Cage is to detonate loitering munition’s warhead early so that it would not reach the weak tank roof. The other purpose is to prevent munitions such as grenades dropped by small commercial drones from getting inside the tank’s fighting compartment through an open crew hatch.
Other than loitering munitions and drones, a new form of threat countered in the War in Ukraine is high-precision artillery rounds. High-precision artillery rounds are artillery rounds that can be guided to the target using laser guidance or the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). The laser-guided rounds are guided using a laser that is painted on the target by forward observers. The forward observers mostly comprise Special Operations Forces (SOF) soldiers who operate behind enemy lines. The guidance system of the artillery rounds enables them to hit small-sized targets with high precision, such as enemy headquarters or tanks, even moving ones.
The sheer firepower and velocity of a single artillery shell make it impossible to be countered and intercepted using today’s technology. Whereas drones and loitering munitions can be countered using Cope Cages and additional explosive reactive armor (ERA) on the roof, high-precision artillery rounds cannot. The high velocity of artillery rounds means that the sheer impact of it would break the layer of the Cope Cage without effort and detonate a couple of milliseconds later on the turret roof. It also means that the artillery rounds cannot be intercepted by any active protection system (APS) available today. Moreover, the incoming angle of the artillery rounds would be too high for most APS to be able to handle.
The Importance of Other Elements Supporting the Tanks
The War in Ukraine also proved the importance of other elements supporting tanks on the modern battlefield. During the military build-up stage before the war, Russian Battalion Tactical Group (BTG) formations were feared by many due to their capability despite being a small formation. The BTG is the Russian interpretation of the US military combined arms formation BCT (Brigade Combat Team) and RCT (Regimental Combat Team). BTG formations were formed around a tank element (mainly T-72B3) and consisted of other support elements, including infantry, IFVs, reconnaissance vehicles, self-propelled howitzers (SPH), and self-propelled anti-air (SPAA) systems. The BTG would take on the role as the spearhead in an offensive and would be followed by slower units to reinforce the breakthrough. In the beginning of the war, the performance of Russian BTGs proved to be unsatisfactory. Many BTGs were isolated and destroyed by the Ukrainians.
The Russian BTGs lacked two essential factors: proper intelligence on the battlefield and the number of infantry under its formation. Due to the lack of proper intelligence on the battlefield regarding enemy positions and strength, BTGs often found themselves in difficult situations. The BTGs would roll into heavily defended areas without knowing and were destroyed by hand-held ATGMs more often than not. The lack of a sufficient number of infantry also made the BTGs more susceptible to ambushes due to lower situational awareness. The small number of infantry also meant that the tanks would not receive enough protection from enemy infantry in urban situations. Tanks of the BTG would often be isolated from their supporting forces and ambushed by enemy infantry from uncleared buildings. This would lead the BTGs to avoid directly capturing enemy settlements during their advance, forcing them to encircle the settlements by sacrificing their momentum or bypassing the settlements by risking ambushes on their main supply route (MSR).
Prove that Tanks are Still Relevant
Although both conflicts have tarnished the tank’s reputation in the public eye, these same conflicts also provide valuable lessons that dispel the notion of tanks becoming obsolete. In both conflicts, tanks played pivotal roles, demonstrating their effectiveness in achieving mission success.
Bakhmut: the Battle that Lack the Presence of Tanks
Bakhmut in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, witnessed the bloodiest battle of the 21st Century. The battle for the city lasted for 11 months. The slow initial advances by the Russians enabled the Ukrainian defenders to heavily fortify the city. Trench lines were built around the perimeter of the city. During the battle, neither side deployed a large number of tanks. The main Russian element in the battle was the Wagner Group Private Military Company (PMC). Wagner itself did not have a large number of tanks in its inventory and emphasized the use of conscripts from convicts. Thus, the battle for Bakhmut was fought mainly by foot soldiers.
Due to the lack of tank presence in the battle, it quickly turned into static trench warfare, similar to the one found in World War I, albeit bloodier due to automatic weapons being more widely available and higher artillery precision than in World War I. Human wave tactics were employed to punch through the defensive line, inflicting mass casualties on the attackers.
Reconnaissance on enemy strongpoints was also done using human scouts. Due to the ruins, reconnaissance using air assets could not effectively locate enemy defensive strongpoints. The situation necessitated the usage of ground elements to conduct reconnaissance. However, due to the nature of static trench warfare, the forward strongpoints would be concealed or camouflaged and would not be detectable before they actively engaged combatants. Main battle tanks (MBTs) or other armored reconnaissance vehicles would have been suitable for the task. They would draw enemy fire and mark the strongpoints along the frontline. The lack of MBT presence on the attacker’s side meant that using a low-risk method like this would be impossible. Wagner then decided to use conscripts consisting of convicts to advance on enemy positions. While advancing on the No Man’s Land, these conscripts would be fired upon by the Ukrainians, where most of them would either be killed or wounded. The observers positioned to the rear of the advancing conscripts would then mark the enemy positions. This method sacrificed human lives for a simple reconnaissance mission that could have been safely done using MBTs or other armored vehicles.
The employment of armor in the battle was dominated by the Ukrainians. They employed multiple tanks and IFVs, although not in large numbers. The most famous of the tanks that participated in the battle on the Ukrainian side is the captured Russian T-80BVM called “Bunny.” The tanks served as mobile firepower, acting as a “fire brigade” to put out fires anywhere on the front where there was an ongoing Russian attempt at breaking through. This heavily favored the defenders for having more firepower at their disposal, making it much harder for the attackers to take any defensive positions.
Mariupol: the Battle with Tanks Present
In contrast to the 11-month-long Battle of Bakhmut, the battle for Mariupol lasted only three months. Although different from Bakhmut due to the successful encirclement of the city by the Russians, the presence of tanks also played a major part in accelerating the time to take over the city (making the battle relatively faster compared to Bakhmut). Due to the presence of tanks, the initial advances made by the Russians on the outskirts of the city were relatively fast compared to the initial advances in Bakhmut. The city itself was completely surrounded in a matter of days after the battle on the outskirts started.
Conclusion on the Obsolescence of Tanks from the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and Russo-Ukraine War
Their versatility, firepower, and integration into combined arms operations proved crucial in shaping the outcomes of battles. While individual tanks may be destroyed, the overall impact and effectiveness of tanks were evident throughout these conflicts. Tanks adapted to the evolving battlefield and continued to provide essential capabilities that contributed to the overall success of ground operations.
Obsolescence from Technical Aspect of the Tank
In this section, we will delve into the technical aspects of tank obsolescence. It is essential to understand that tanks have continually proven their adaptability and will continue to do so in the future. We will explore each aspect of tanks to underscore their enduring relevance.
Lethality
Lethality, defined as a tank’s ability to effectively eliminate or destroy enemy targets at a distance, can be divided into two critical components: firepower and the fire control system (FCS).
Firepower: Currently, the most common main gun calibers on modern Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) are 120mm in Western-built tanks and 125mm smoothbore in Eastern-built tanks. These guns effectively deliver kinetic energy penetrators (KEP) and chemical energy shells (CEP) to engage a wide range of targets. CEP shells come in various configurations, each tailored to specific target types, showcasing the versatility of tank firepower. Additionally, advancements in larger ammunition storage, turret designs, and entirely new tank designs demonstrate the tank’s adaptability to meet evolving combat needs.
Fire Control System (FCS): The evolution of FCS, from analog technology to transistors, has significantly improved a tank’s ability to deliver firepower accurately. Modern FCS includes high-performance computers, laser rangefinders, and crosswind sensors, enabling rapid and precise target engagement, even on the move. Furthermore, the integration of these systems enhances situational awareness and the tank’s hunter-killer capabilities.
Awareness
Crews inside a tank rely on devices like sights and cameras to comprehend their surroundings. Awareness, vital for a tank’s survival, can be categorized into optronics and early warning systems.
Optronics: Tanks are equipped with sighting systems that include primary and thermal cameras, ensuring effective target identification and situational awareness. Commander independent panoramic sights, known as CITV, further enhance awareness, especially during hunter-killer operations.
Early Warning System: Early warning systems, such as laser warning systems (LWS), provide alerts to the tank’s crew when targeted by specific enemy weapons. LWS not only inform the crew of potential threats but also indicate the direction of the incoming laser. The integration of such systems enhances the tank’s survivability.
Protection
Tank protection has evolved from thin-sheet steel to composite armor capable of withstanding high-penetration ordnance. Modular designs and add-on armor, such as sideskirts, cage/slat armor, passive armor, and explosive reactive armor (ERA), contribute to the tank’s adaptability. Active Protection Systems (APS) further increase the tank’s chances of survival by intercepting incoming threats. Tanks continuously improve their defensive capabilities to meet evolving anti-tank threats.
Mobility
Tank mobility is essential, and tracks offer several advantages over rubber tires. They distribute less pressure on the ground, making tanks effective in cross-country terrain and less developed infrastructure. Tracks also provide greater resistance to enemy fire, offering enhanced protection.
Information and Communication Networks
Modern tanks are integrated into information and communication networks, allowing them to access real-time data and make informed decisions. This enhanced situational awareness improves their ability to identify and engage targets effectively, thereby increasing their operational effectiveness on the battlefield.
Conclusion of Technical Aspect
In conclusion, considering the technical aspects discussed, it is evident that tanks are far from obsolete. They have continuously adapted to meet the ever-evolving demands of modern warfare. With advancements in lethality, awareness, protection, mobility, and information and communication networks, tanks remain indispensable assets in military operations, offering a potent combination of firepower, survivability, and versatility. As they continue to evolve and adapt, tanks will undoubtedly remain a formidable force on the battlefield for years to come.
Why Tank Destruction ≠ Obsolescence
It is essential to understand that the destruction of individual tanks does not equate to the obsolescence of tanks as a whole. Tanks are designed to absorb and endure significant amounts of damage, thanks to their advanced armor technologies. The destruction of a tank signifies the effectiveness of anti-tank measures but does not diminish the overall relevance of tanks in modern warfare. Tanks are part of a larger ecosystem of military capabilities and strategic planning, and their impact extends beyond individual losses.
In addition to the aforementioned reasons, another factor that contributes to the relevance of tanks on the modern battlefield is the doctrinal use of tanks. Each tank is designed according to its manufacturer’s country doctrine, which outlines the intended purpose and tactical employment of the tank. These doctrines take into account the military strategy, terrain, and operational objectives of the user country.
While some countries adhere closely to their respective doctrines when employing tanks, others may deviate from them or have a less developed doctrine altogether. This variation in doctrinal implementation can impact the effectiveness of tanks in certain situations. However, it is important to note that this does not render tanks obsolete but rather emphasizes the significance of using tanks in accordance with their intended doctrine.
When tanks are employed according to their doctrinal guidelines, they can leverage their strengths and capabilities to their fullest extent. They are integrated into larger military strategies, coordinated with other units, and deployed in a manner that aligns with their design principles. This doctrinal use ensures that tanks operate in a manner that maximizes their effectiveness and enhances the overall combat power of the military force.
Even in cases where a country’s doctrine may be less developed or not fully adhered to, the inherent qualities of tanks such as mobility, firepower, and protection still make them formidable assets on the battlefield. Tanks possess the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, overcome obstacles, and engage enemy forces. Their versatility allows them to perform various roles, from offensive operations to defensive maneuvers, depending on the needs of the situation.
In conclusion, the doctrinal use of tanks is an important factor in their relevance on the modern battlefield. While adherence to doctrine may vary among different countries, tanks retain their effectiveness when employed according to their intended purpose. The continued evolution of doctrines, combined with the versatility, firepower, and integration of tanks into combined arms operations, ensures their ongoing importance in contemporary warfare. Tanks remain an indispensable asset in achieving battlefield superiority, protecting ground forces, and contributing to the success of military operations.
Despite the emergence of new threats and challenges, tanks excel when integrated into combined arms operations. They work alongside infantry, artillery, and air support, forming a cohesive force that maximizes their effectiveness. The synergy created by combined arms operations enhances the survivability and combat potential of tanks, making them formidable assets on the battlefield.
Conclusion: Are Tanks Still Relevant in Modern Battlefield?
Tanks have a rich historical context, originating as a solution to the challenges of trench warfare in World War I, and they played a pivotal role in breaking the stalemate by providing protected mobile direct fire support, eliminating enemy strongpoints, and facilitating infantry advances. Lessons from recent conflicts, such as the Nagorno-Karabakh War and the War in Ukraine, where tanks adapted to counter new threats like loitering munitions and high-precision artillery, reaffirming their significance on the battlefield. Tanks play a multifaceted role in contemporary warfare, offering mobile firepower, engagement of enemy targets, support to infantry units, and protection in urban combat. They continue to evolve technically, demonstrating adaptability in terms of lethality, awareness, protection, mobility, and integration into information and communication networks. Moreover, the doctrinal use of tanks, according to their intended purpose, enhances their effectiveness and highlights their importance in achieving battlefield superiority within combined arms operations. In summary, tanks remain an indispensable asset in modern warfare, with their historical legacy, adaptability, and continued relevance in addressing a wide range of battlefield challenges confirming their continued importance.
References
Bateman, R. (2020, October 15). No, drones haven’t made tanks obsolete. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/15/drones-tanks-obsolete-nagorno-karabakh-azerbaijan-armenia/
Fiore, N. J. (2017). Defeating the Russian Battalion Tactical Group — Army. https://www.moore.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2017/spring/2Fiore17.pdf
Grau, L. W., & Bartles, C. K. (2016). The Russian Way of War: Force Structure, Tactics, and Modernization of the Russian Ground Forces. Foreign Military Studies Office. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/hot%20spots/documents/russia/2017-07-the-russian-way-of-war-grau-bartles.pdf
Guderian, H. (2012). Achtung-Panzer!: The development of Tank Warfare. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Morgan, J. (2022, August 19). Armor attrition in Nagorno-Karabakh battle not a sign US should give up on tanks, experts say. Military Times. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/09/30/armor-attrition-in-nagorno-karabakh-battle-not-a-sign-us-should-give-up-on-tanks-experts-say/
Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, March 16. Institute for the Study of War. (n.d.-a). https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-16
Russian offensive campaign assessment, May 21, 2023. Institute for the Study of War. (n.d.-b). https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-21-2023
Shaikh, S., & Rumbaugh, W. (n.d.). The air and Missile War in Nagorno-Karabakh: Lessons for the future of Strike and defense. CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/air-and-missile-war-nagorno-karabakh-lessons-future-strike-and-defense
Why have Russian tanks struggled in Ukraine?. Imperial War Museums. (n.d.). https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-have-russian-tanks-struggled-in-ukraine
WP Company. (2020, November 12). Azerbaijan’s drones owned the battlefield in Nagorno-Karabakh — and showed future of warfare. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/nagorno-karabkah-drones-azerbaijan-aremenia/2020/11/11/441bcbd2-193d-11eb-8bda-814ca56e138b_story.html
