MILITARY & STRATEGIC:
TANK WARFARE HAS CHANGED

The first tanks were deployed in WW1 in 1917. They were developed to break the stalemate of trench warfare. With nothing to counter them except a direct hit from heavy artillery - something more likely to happen by accident than design, in the end they were critical in upending the war and winning it. They restored mobility.
In WW2 the tank truly came into its own as the very focus of military operations - Blitzkrieg was predicated on the armoured spearhead slicing its way behind enemy lines and cutting off infantry armies, placing them in pockets that were in some cases vast in size - especially in Russia. Several examples of infantry as large as 250,000 men being captured provided staggering victories for Nazi tank armies led by imagination and daring.
The tank dominated land warfare.
By 1988 the end of the Iran-Iraq war which became remarkably static occasionally broken by Iraqi tank raids that usually ended badly, created some doubt. The US invasion of Iraq a couple of years later and again in 2003 proved that a disciplined combined arms tank based war was still viable. In many ways it was text book but its weakness was its overwhelming nature, that led to a view that nothing could surpass it.
Ukraine has changed the whole concept of the tank. Military forces around the world are wondering how their expensive tanks are going to fare in a world of drones and wide use of ATGM’s.
The loss of the T-72 series to single hits that cook off the ammunition in the autoloader sending one recent turret 75m into the air has undermined the value of such weapons.
The M-1 Abram’s suffered so many losses - partly because it became a high bonus payment target for Russian troops - that Ukraine withdrew them from use. 15 of 31 were destroyed. Some of the imagery shows them properly destroyed - weakness around the tracks and rear engine compartments were quickly identified by drone operators. Crews lauded the fact they survived which is more than can be said for T-72/80/90 operators.
The M-1 has now reentered service with specially designed mesh net frameworks over the rear of the turret, full length armoured side skirts and a heavy coating of Kontakt-1 exploding bricks designed to stop some anti-tank weapons.
There was much concern over the value of the 1960’s designed Leopard-1A5 long stored in warehouses in Germany. It was designed in the early 1960’s to counter the Russian T-62/64 but was outclassed by the T-72 which had thicker armour and longer ranged guns.
Yet it’s proven to be quite useful once crews worked out how it could be employed.
Some use it as mobile artillery and that’s something the ancient T-55 has been used for by the Russians.
Others have found that its long range optical sights, fast rate of fire, speed and manoeuvring skills completely outclass the T-64 and other armoured units and it can pick them off at long range and scoot off. Just don’t let drones get to it.
Another way tanks are being used rather than as spearheads is to come in and back up infantry during trench and tree line clearing operations. They have to race in, do a fast job and get out again before the enemy drone operators get a grip of the situation.
The tanks then retreat quickly back out of range often under smoke.
There have been almost no scenarios where the use of armour as spearhead has been possible. Neither side has the numbers and on the few occasions there are not trenches and minefields established in depth - such as the flanks of the Pokrovsk salient, even as the opportunity to use mass armour presented itself, there was neither the quantity or manpower to make it viable.
The Ukrainians urged on by the allies attempted a combined arms operation in the summer of 2023. It was initially a disaster. Leopard-2A6’s were seen burning and spearhead tactics obliterated. It should never have been attempted because the key element missing was air power. Without that no spearhead these days can advance against heavy networked and mined defences.
The lesson was learned the hard way. CONTINUES…