The arrival of American M1A1 Abrams tanks in Ukraine was hailed as a turning point in the war. Costing about $10 million per unit, the NATO Pillar was supposed to provide the armored fist that would break through Russian lines. But war tactics are evolving rapidly, and Russia’s use of surveillance drones and hunter-killers has led to heavy losses for Ukraine’s tank fleets. This is alarming for NATO. If Russia has discovered critical vulnerabilities in our armor, our borders are starting to look very vulnerable.
Washington promised 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine in January last year. The first batch arrived in September. They finally made their combat debut in February of this year, with the first video footage released on February 25. On the 26th, the Russians scored their first victory against Abrams.
Two months after entering service, the Abrams tanks are now withdrawn from the front. Five of the 31 tanks delivered last year have already been destroyed.
On its face, this is a damning indictment of the vulnerability of a weapons system born a century ago to 21st century weapons. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. The usefulness of the tank demonstrated at the Battle of Cambrai in 1917 does not diminish on the battlefields of Ukraine in 2024, when used as it is intended to be.
To begin with, it should be noted that the Ukrainians are not using the latest and greatest model of the M1A1. Some of the features that make the tank more durable and resilient were removed to prevent it from falling into Russian hands.
But we also need to consider what the tank was intended for. Enthusiastically supported by Winston Churchill, the tank was based on the attributes of firepower, protection and mobility. As German tactician General Heinz Guderian realized when he conceived blitzkrieg, it is in shock action that the tank is most adept, where its ability to maneuver at high speed and deploy enormous punch gives him a winning role in the battle.
However, when used as a pillbox, it simply exploits its firepower at the expense of its maneuverability. This appears to be how the Ukrainian Armed Forces deploy it, making it very vulnerable to drone attacks.
Some modifications to the defenses may also be necessary. Even modern Western tanks like the Abrams and Challenger 2 were designed long before drones became a serious threat on the battlefield. Today, in Ukraine, these modern weapons have come into their own. As the UK seeks to re-establish and improve its own conventional defence, this is an area which merits close attention and commitment of resources. We cannot live in a world where drones costing a few thousand dollars have carte blanche to attack $10 million tanks where they are most vulnerable: from above, where the armor is just thick enough to stop machine gun fire.
There are simple solutions to address this vulnerability; metal cages and explosive armor can be installed on the roof of the tank to reduce this threat. Hopefully in the not too distant future, tanks could be equipped with something like the British DragonFire laser system, which has shown promising early results in destroying drones. If this happens, the effectiveness of drones will be radically reduced – until the next evolution. The war continues to evolve, and offense and defense continue to swap positions.
But in the shorter term, Ukraine must adopt a mentality based more on maneuver warfare, in which rapid combined arms action can destabilize and dislocate the very static Russian invaders. This will require air power, artillery and infantry to work together with tanks to punch holes in Russian defenses and cause riots in rear areas.
There are reasons to be optimistic. New US-supplied military long-range tactical missile systems (Atacms) have already struck airfields in Crimea and are expected to wreak havoc behind Russian lines. The vaunted F-16 fighters, meanwhile, are on the horizon and should give Ukraine the opportunity to allow its armored forces freedom of maneuver and action on the ground.
And perhaps most importantly, Ukrainians are getting used to working with modern Western tanks. The ground is drying, ammunition is flowing and the armored charge could arrive. A Western tank moving at 50 mph is much harder to hit than a static tank. The days of armored warfare may not yet be numbered.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 3 months with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving deals and more.
yahoo
