In the wake of the conflict in Ukraine, the venerable main battle tank (MBT), once the linchpin of ground warfare, has come under scrutiny. The ongoing hostilities have served as a live-fire test for military doctrines worldwide, prompting the question: are these steel beasts now relics of a bygone era?
Historically, the MBT has been synonymous with power projection. Yet, in Ukraine, the Russian T-72s and T-90s, despite their modern upgrades, have often been left smouldering in fields, victims of anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), like the American-made Javelin or the British NLAWs, which have been supplied in large numbers to Ukrainian forces. These portable systems, wielded by infantry, have proven their potency against the armoured giants. The statistics are telling—hundreds of Russian tanks have been reported as destroyed or captured since the beginning of the conflict. Officers and other ranks of the British Army’s Royal Armoured Corps surely weep when they see videos online of their Challenger 2s and their top-secret Chobham Armour, disabled by often nothing more than a cheap recreational drone dropping a grenade into an open hatch. Their sense of invincibility over infantry will surely have taken a knock.
The vulnerability of tanks in modern combat is not a new revelation. In the Gulf War, the American M1 Abrams demonstrated the superiority of advanced MBTs over outdated Soviet-era models. However, the environment in Ukraine is different; urban and close-quarter battles dominate, negating the traditional advantages of tanks such as long-range firepower and armour protection. Drones have also emerged as a significant threat, providing cheaper and effective means of reconnaissance and attack, making it easier to spot and target MBTs. In this war of long-range shelling and drone strikes commanded from hundreds of miles away, the large-scale tank charges seen in Iraq 1991 seem as distant and foolish as cavalry nobly charging machine guns on horseback in the warfare changes a century ago.
The lessons from Ukraine are clear: the MBT is not obsolete, but its role on the modern battlefield is changing. The tank’s survivability is contingent upon a combined-arms approach, integrating infantry, air defence, electronic warfare capabilities, and, crucially, unmanned systems that can screen and protect these valuable assets. There has been integrated air-land warfare and cavalry-infantry co-operation for as long as their means have existed, but every conflict adapts doctrine to new realities.
Nations are taking note. Germany’s Leopard 2 and Britain’s Challenger 2 are undergoing significant upgrades to enhance their defensive systems against ATGMs and to improve their strategic mobility. The United States Army is investing in the development of its next-generation ground combat vehicle, which may redefine the concept of armoured warfare.
In conclusion, the MBT remains a critical component of ground forces, but it cannot operate in isolation. The future of armoured warfare will demand adaptability, technological innovation, and a reevaluation of conventional tactics. As military analysts pore over the data from Ukraine, the role of the MBT is being reimagined for a new era of warfare, one that respects the legacy of the tank while acknowledging the ascendancy of modern, multi-dimensional threats.
