Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/uspatri1/public_html/index.php:32) in /home/uspatri1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php on line 1197
The Tanking of the Tanks | U.S. PATRIOT NEWS & REVIEWS

The Tanking of the Tanks

Since the end of the Cold War, every one of the NATO and former Warsaw Pact nations has taken the chance to reduce defense spending in real terms. Armed forces have shrunk, with many armies barely half the size they were in 1990. One place where the reductions have bit particularly hard is in heavy armored forces – tanks. The British Army of the 1980s had three armoured divisions and close to a thousand tanks. Now it has less than 290 operational ones, with a couple of hundred more in storage. The US Army’s fleet of more than 11,000 tanks has shrunk to 1,500, with 6,800 more in storage (although most of these are old models of the M1). Most dramatic of all the former West German fleet of 3,800 tanks has shrunk to 255.

It’s easy to see why politicians and cash-strapped generals have concentrated on tanks as a target for cuts. They’re expensive, for a start. They’re a very offensive weapon, with limited use in the sort of “peace support” operations we’re supposed to do these days. They’re also perceived as vulnerable; attack helicopters, precision-guided air-launched weapons and lightweight missiles like the Javelin can all kill tanks. This is a familiar argument; every couple of decades it’s confidently announced that new technology has made the tank obsolete. Then someone’s country gets overrun by a clanking armored flood and tanks are back in fashion for a while.

T72Of course there’s one country where they haven’t been out of fashion since the 1930s – Russia. The Russian army has been cut even more savagely than its former adversaries, but the blow didn’t land as heavily on their heavy armor. In fact, they seem to have worked very hard to keep tank strength up at almost any cost. It’s true that they scrapped, sold off or mothballed better than 30,000 tanks but they were all older models, some of them dating back to the 1940s. What matters is that there are almost 4,500 left, all of them T-90s, T-80s or heavily upgraded variants of the T-72. The thirsty and less well protected T-80s are being phased out and replaced as more stockpiled T-72s are upgraded. Only the T-90A and T-72B2/B3 are an even match for a modern western tank, but the others are pretty close and there are an awful lot of them. There are 8,000 more T-72s in storage.

Russian T-72s are much more dangerous beasts than the export “monkey models” we destroyed so easily in Iraq, but they’re still outclassed by an M1A2, Challenger 2 or Leopard 2. Where it gets tricky is if there aren’t any western tanks around. If you’re in an MRAP, or even a Bradley, a T-72 is suddenly a massive problem. With modern reactive armor packages like K5 or Relikt, there’s no guarantee even a top-attack Javelin is going to take it out, and it’s immune to standard infantry weapons. Meanwhile a five-inch gun with missile launch capability, plus a couple of machine guns, means it can seriously screw up your day.

M1A2The standard answer to enemies with an inconvenient tank force is to use air power to eliminate it, but maybe we’ve become slightly complacent about that in recent years. Most old Cold Warriors have heard the joke about the two Soviet tank generals having a drink in Paris when one asks the other, “By the way, who won the air war?” The USA and its allies can win any conceivable air war for the next two decades at least, but Russian GBAD systems can keep our strike planes high enough that tanks can move freely over considerable areas. We saw that happen over Kosovo, when a weeks-long bombing campaign produced tank kills in single digits.

The Cold War isn’t heating up again – so far, anyone who says that is just being alarmist – but unlike just a few years ago, we can’t rule out a confrontation with Russia or one of its heavily armed proxies. With that in mind maybe it’s time we started to re-invest in the only anti-tank weapon that’s stood the test of time – our own tanks.

Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.

Fergus Mason

Fergus Mason grew up in the west of Scotland. After attending university he spent 14 years in the British Army and served in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Iraq. Afterwards, he went to Afghanistan as a contractor, where he worked in Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif and Camp Leatherneck. He now writes on a variety of topics including current affairs and military matters.
Fergus Mason

Latest posts by Fergus Mason (see all)

0 Shares

5 thoughts on “The Tanking of the Tanks

  1. Spot on assessment. One point that needs some light though is the “trade up” and proliferation of the T72 export model which has replaced the venerable and vulnerable T55. The chances of running into an export T72 in countries that previously did not have tanks or somehow had managed to maintain a few of the geriatric T55’s but traded up to the export T72 is growing. Though of little threat to a modern NATO MBT it would be a significant threat to a Marine BLT, an Army Airborne unit or Strykers and LAV’s and certain death to MRAPS. With the current infatuation with “Light” fighting forces it could spell disaster.

  2. Great analysis. Only countries like the USA and maybe the UK have seen MBTs as a problem when it comes to intercontinental mobility. But that’s a concern for only two countries in the whole world.

    Other countries only need to use their heavy forces to defend against (or invade) their neighbours, so they don’t need to be so concerned with long range transporation if they have enough flat bed trucks and trains.

    Also, the majority of nations don’t have the same sizeable air forces as the USA. If war broke out, their combat aircraft will be too busy dealing with hostile airpower to guarantee total air dominance over land forces. So those land forces will need the hard fist of MBTs to slug it out.

  3. Couldn’t agree more with the conclusion that tanks are still relevant. Sure, an Apache or foreign equivalent can wipe out a tank company in a few heartbeats, but that’s under ideal circumstances with no contested airspace. Once the aerial playing field is leveled, ground troops will be able to survive, and against a foe with high tech “light” vehicles thrive.

    If a Javelin can reliably take out a tank (big if), will reducing armor to
    inconsequential status really help? An armored vehicle can’t outrun a guided supersonic missile, so a tank must either armor up or invest in active defenses. All of this points to better, tougher tanks, like the challenger or M1, not combustible target practice toys like T-90’s, which have no ability to resist Kinetic Energy Penetrators.

    Combined arms have always been essential, from the time of Knights and men at arms to Air Land Battle now. If all our strength is in air power and APC’s, they will be simple to counter. Emerging technologies may curtail air power, as aircraft cannot be armored sufficiently to withstand new laser weapons. Missiles also will be easy to shoot down, and armoring them simply makes them slower. In short, a drastic tactical change seems foolish when we can’t predict even a decade in the future

    1. I wouldn’t underestimate the KE protection of late-series Russian tanks. Don’t forget that T-90 is really a rebranded T-72BU, a modernised T-72B(M). When NATO tested those in the 1990s they turned out to be virtually invulnerable to 120mm APFSDS rounds. Current 120mm NATO and UK rounds have a slight overmatch, but killing any tank with K5 ERA is far from a sure thing.

    2. The Houthi’s in Yemen just shot down a Saudi Apache – presumably with Strela MANPAD, helos are really vulnerable in such mountainous landscape where MANPAD missile can be launched from high ground and strike in seconds.
      Going back to Kosovo NATO left all helos at home – as Yugo MANPAD’s were all over the ground and would have caused carnage. Helos need a dominated air space or they are fireballs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *