Tanks have come a long way from their early
days of crossing trenches and dodging landmines. The most capable tanks of today, like the
Leopard and Abrams with their heavy guns and targeting systems, more and more
resemble battleships crawling on land. The question is whether these behemoths, which
have dominated the battlefield for over a century, are going extinct, or are they just evolving into
something … smaller. This question is posed by the war in Ukraine, where tanks are proving
more vulnerable than ever, and that’s due to technologies like the javelin launchers and FPV
drones. In Ukraine, the traditional tactics of open-field tank battles are proving less and
less viable, with armored casualties mounting on both sides, due to far more cost-effective
methods, such as ambushes and anti-tank infantry. But from these heavy losses, a new strategy is
emerging for armored warfare – light and fast. Both the Russians and Ukrainians have begun to use
lighter vehicles for their operations in the flat, eastern steppe of Ukraine. One class of vehicle
specifically, the “Infantry Fighting Vehicle” or IFV, is stealing the spotlight from the heavier
main battle tanks … and for good reasons. But why tanks need to lose weight, not so
they can go faster, but to stay relevant, how the M1 Abrams gained its
legendary status somewhat unfairly, and why IFVs are stealing the spotlight
in the Ukraine war, to the extent that having Bradleys might be more effective
than having F-16s, is Not What You Think! The legendary status of the Abrams main
battle tanks were cemented over 30 years ago, in a battle during the Persian Gulf
War between the United States and Iraq. This engagement, known as the Battle of
Medina Ridge lasted two hours, during which, the US Army forces annihilated almost 200 Iraqi
T-72 tanks while losing only four Abrams tanks. Early on after the battle, many historians
would go on to credit the superior armor and targeting technology of the Abrams for this
resounding success. But, there’s one pretty big detail that is often left out about this
battle, which is that the Americans had total air supremacy and could use their A-10 Warthogs
and AH-64 Apaches to overwhelm the Iraqi tanks. It’s this detail that is missing today in
Ukraine since neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians can mount and maintain a continuous
air campaign for air supremacy. For the Russians, it’s a lack of resources and parts to maintain
their aircraft, while for the Ukrainians, it’s a lack of aircraft and qualified pilots to fly
them. Without air superiority, protecting tanks from infantry ambushes and anti-tank weapons is
difficult, since there’s no element of suppression or reconnaissance from the air. But there’s
also another wrinkle with protecting tanks. Even with air superiority, the development of
drones has made it nearly impossible for tanks to hide on the battlefield, since operators can
fly low-profile commercial drones and spot them from anywhere. Once a tank is spotted, it’s
easy for enemy soldiers to use an anti-tank weapon or another drone to take it out,
which has led to steady losses of tanks since the start of the conflict. But just
because armor is becoming more vulnerable, doesn’t mean it's becoming obsolete, and
it’s with these changing conditions that vehicles like the American M2 Bradley and
the Russian BMP-3 are beginning to shine. Even though the news would have you believe
that the answer to all of Ukraine’s troubles is F-16s and Abrams super-tanks, the
truth is really something less extreme. This is because the Russo-Ukrainian War is a slow
crawl of attrition, rather than the typical short shock conflicts common in the 21st century.
And in a war of attrition, preserving infantry is a critical objective. That’s why the Bradley
infantry fighting vehicle has become the star of the show for Ukrainian forces, with some even
claiming they owe their lives to its support. Since January 2023, the United States has been
sending variants of the M2 Bradley to support Ukrainian counteroffensive operations and reports
from soldiers, who have both driven and ridden inside of the IFVs, have begun to reveal
its exceptional abilities to resist mines, attack-drones, and mortars, which gives us a clue
about these vehicle’s real purpose in Ukraine. Since troop movements and vehicle movements
are now so hard to conceal from drones, the factor that contributes to an operation’s
success is the survivability of the movement. This was the purpose for the Bradley’s development
in the first place, as a troop carrier, that can safely deliver and disembark infantry to the
site of a battle. But how does Bradley keep his passengers safe, and how come its survivability
is better than most tanks currently in combat? Well, it's for a combination of reasons. First,
the Bradley’s main focus is to preserve the lives of its passengers, so the Ukrainian
variant uses the Bradley Urban Survival Kit, or “BUSK” for short. BUSK gives the vehicle a
high-intensity spotlight, a wire mesh to protect the optics, non-conductive arched strips
of nylon for downed power line protection, additional armor on the underside with
integral reactive armor, and internal anti-spalding lining to prevent shell and
armor fragments from injuring passengers. The BUSK variant also comes with software
for detecting when components and sensors are damaged, along with a training
simulator to help prepare the gunner. Second, the Bradley is not as attractive of
a target during offensive engagements when supported by heavier tanks, since its weapons
are mainly intended to support its infantry passengers while they disembark. This leads the
enemy to focus on the surrounding vehicles with more firepower, resulting in lower Bradley
casualties when supported by heavier armor. Finally, the Bradley is fast and agile. It can go
up to 40 miles per hour and runs on a torsion bar suspension. Its use of aluminum in the chassis
and armor means a lighter impact when crossing rough terrain, which decreases the risk of
damage during high-speed, sudden maneuvers. With this agility, the driver and gunner
of Bradley can focus on staying on the move when in combat, which decreases the chances of
being destroyed by a drone or anti-tank missile. And when the Bradley eventually runs into a tank,
it has a trick up its sleeve to survive even that: a TOW missile launcher, capable of handling
almost any tank the Bradley might face in Ukraine. The design of the Bradley is not
an entirely original concept, however. In fact, the main reason why the US
focused so heavily on developing the infantry fighting vehicle platform was in response to
the Soviet Union’s BMP series of vehicles. Though not nearly as complex in design as today’s
Western IFVs, the Soviet BMP-1 was a revolutionary concept when it was first introduced in the late
1960s. Designed with aggressively sloped frontal armor, and a low-profile silhouette, it kept
troops relatively safe from small arms fire and artillery fragments. This was a product
of the Soviets’ experience in WWII, where safe movement of troops alongside main battle
tanks proved critical in overwhelming the enemy. The design of BMP-1 also focused on simplicity,
since it was meant to be produced in mass numbers. Along with the BMP-2 and BMP-3, BMP-1 is the most
common vehicle on the battlefield in Ukraine, since the BMP series is used
by both sides of this war. So if IFVs are the main characters in this modern
war, why does everyone talk about tanks so much? Well, the first reason is because Russia
has a lot of tanks, and I mean A LOT. Many analysts believe that Russia has around 1,300
modern battle tanks in active service, but nearly 10,000 older and technically obsolete tanks
in reserve. While these thousands of vintage T-62s and T-55s may not be up to today’s tank
standards, they still have heavier armor and weaponry than any IFV out there today, so the best
way to fight a tank is still with another tank. Javelins and drones are strong
defensive anti-tank weapons, but during an offensive operation, heavy tanks
are needed to push through the enemy’s defense. The second reason is that tanks provide a
significant advantage in urban combat since they are more likely to survive combat within
a city due to their heavier armor and cannon, which are significantly more effective
against building positions. So for Ukraine, more heavy battle tanks means more resources
to push back the occupying Russian forces. But tanks are always changing, because the design
of a tank is a constant push and pull between the mission a tank is built for and how well it
survives that mission. For example, Western Tanks like the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard all have
a common design layout. A large turret and wide body, which makes them a large target. They’re
fast but heavy, and they drink fuel like crazy. Russian tanks focus more on reducing their
silhouette, they’re lower to the ground and have small turrets, many of which replace
a crew member with an auto-loading device. Both Western and Russian tanks operate in direct
combat, generally in stand-alone formations, and with the intention of clearing the way for
a combat infantry force, but with the lack of consistent air support in Ukraine, this doctrine
has been difficult to implement. So tanks are currently taking on more flexible missions,
like probing-attacks and reconnaissance. With these developments, many countries
are beginning to turn towards finding the middle ground between IFVs and tanks. Two
examples of this are the newest American tank, the M10 Booker, and China’s Type 15. With the
US Army’s M10, the focus has been weight loss, with a new standard weight of 38 metric
tonnes, nearly half of the Abrams’ 67 tonnes. This weight reduction for the
Booker is because the Abrams tank is too heavy for airborne doctrine
and cannot be transported very easily. The new M10 also features a slightly smaller
105mm gun rather than the M1’s new 120mm cannon. With this, the Booker has access to a wider
variety of shell types, since 105mm is far more common among NATO tanks than 120mm
shells. These specs are incredibly similar to the Chinese Type 15, which also uses a 105mm
gun and reportedly weighs 33-36 metric tonnes. Much of the reasoning behind the design of these
two tanks is similar, since the lighter a tank is, the easier it is to transport it to and from the
battlefield. Lighter tanks also have advantages when operating at higher altitudes, since their
engines need less oxygen to power the vehicle. They are also much easier for amphibious
transports to land on beaches. Even beyond these two tanks, some IFVs are
also getting closer in design to the tank. Take for example the new German Puma IFV,
which is an improvement on the Marder class and uses an auto-loading turret. Just like the
M10 and Type 15, this armored fighting vehicle blurs the operational line between troop carrier
and armored support. All of these newer vehicles point to the same direction in doctrine for
the militaries of the future: light mobile warfare centered around supporting infantry
operations. So are mammoth tanks going extinct? The answer is, no, at least for now. Mostly
because they’re still highly effective at defending positions and breaking through them.
But as missile and drone technologies continue to improve, the focus for tanks will be finding ways
to stay on the move, rather than becoming target practice! This is no different from how the cruise
missiles changed the way naval ships operate, or even how the bullet changed the amount
of armor a soldier wears. As the projectile hitting you gets better at breaking your armor,
the best defense is just avoiding it altogether.
