Are Tanks Useless In The Modern Age? Here's What Experts Have Said

There is little denying the influence and importance of the tank in modern armies. With more than 70,000 tanks in active service around the world, they make up a huge part of every military force. In numerous conflicts and wars, they've proved effective at pushing through enemy lines and acting as a protector to infantry troops on the ground. Yet, their dominance may well be coming to an end.

Recent wars, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War between Armenia and Azerbaijan, have cast doubt on the role of tanks. In these conflicts, they've been outgunned and destroyed en masse by infantry weapons and the best military drones. Recent news that certain countries are cutting back their tank fleets and the U.S. Marine Corps is scrapping its three tank battalions has led to speculation that the tank as we know it might not be as useful as it once was.

To determine what the future may hold for the tank, and whether it will continue to play a major role or become obsolete, SlashGear has examined the thoughts of several experts, from defense analysts to strategic planners, historians, and military personnel.

One of the major problems with tanks in the modern age is that they are vulnerable to weapons that are widespread in infantry units. In the past, it was difficult for troops to take the offensive against tanks without heavy weaponry or air and artillery support. That is no longer necessarily the case, and soldiers who are on the ground can fight these armored behemoths and actually deal decisive blows.

Speaking to Business Insider, military strategy consultant Edward Luttwak explained how warfare has changed in that regard. Troops who are operating on foot have the firepower to hurt tanks. "An infantry that is determined to fight is now super-empowered by having things like a huge number of point-and-shoot disposable anti-tank rockets," he said.

What makes disposable weapons — known as next-generation light anti-tank weapons (NLAW) — so useful is their flexibility. As noted by manufacturer SAAB, "NLAW can attack from almost any position, from up high in a building to behind a tree or in a ditch." It is little surprise, then, that so many Russian tanks have been destroyed by Ukrainian infantry in the conflict so far.

The ease of use of NLAWs has made them an ideal weapon against tanks. Almost every soldier can be trained to use them and they don't require much skill — some say it can take as little as one hour to learn how to use them in combat. "The weapon that makes a huge difference is these NLAWs, a light anti-tank weapon, the plastic tube with a hollow charge rocket," military strategy consultant Edward Luttwak told Business Insider. "You point and shoot. A truck can drop 500 of them at the street corner in Kyiv."

Drones are not as easy to use as NLAWs. They require an entire team to work properly, ranging from scouts looking for pilots, engineers to service them and add explosives, and pilots that can fly them at enemy targets. There's also concern about the fact that most drones in use by Ukrainian and Russian forces originated in China, prompting fears the country could gain access to sensitive information.

Yet, Ukraine's military forces have found a way around this potential problem. "When we talked to Europeans, they were amazed at how easy it is to hack and anonymize Chinese drones. It is safe to use them, we tried to persuade our partners," Pavlo Tsybenko said to Politico.

Wars are increasingly being fought in urban environments rather than wide open spaces. This is partly because current conflicts are taking place in locations where there are lots of large cities but also because populations urbanizing faster and faster all over the world. That is coinciding with a trend where tanks are becoming bigger and heavier than they have been for decades. Both of those facts make tanks more vulnerable than they have been, as the unpredictable and confined spaces of city streets combined with a lack of maneuverability puts tanks in the firing line.

Tanks like the ones being used most widely by Russia in Ukraine are well protected from frontal assault. That's because they feature something known as the glacis, a slanted front-facing piece of armor that can deflect missiles and is resistant to explosions. In a city where an attack can come from any direction, armor at the front of the tank is useless. Enemy attacks can come from the side, back, or even from up high, rendering the tank uniquely vulnerable.

Experts from the Royal United Services Institute told the Economist that "it must be doubted whether existing concepts of armored maneuver will remain viable." The head of land warfare for Janes, Jon Hawkes, spoke in the same article to confirm that the capabilities of infantry weapons now outmatch the armor of tanks: "But the tank is more vulnerable now than it has ever been," Hawkes explained. "We're reaching the apex of the armor versus gun race — and armor has lost that race."

The debate over the usefulness of tanks in the modern era of warfare stems from the performance of armored vehicles in Ukraine. Russia has lost a huge number of its tanks fighting Ukrainian forces, with estimates suggesting that the figure could be as high as 3,000. Phillips P. O'Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews, believes responsibility cannot be solely placed on the vulnerabilities of the tank, but also on the tactics and strategies of Russian military officials.

That view is shared by several other experts, who believe Russia has misused its fleet of tanks. Speaking to the Economist, analysts from the Royal United Services Institute revealed that Russian tanks were particularly at risk from attack from the side and front, and that has been magnified by the fact that the tanks have had little in the way of air support. "Almost every conflict that has involved Soviet-era tanks from the T-64 onwards has shown the vulnerability of these designs to attacks from above and from the sides," they said.

Russia's failure to establish air superiority over Ukraine and its marching of tanks in single-line convoys in the early days of the war led to massive losses. Drones and infantry troops faced little deterrence from fighter jets, attack helicopters, or bombers, and so could attack with almost impunity. Meanwhile, Russia's military seemingly doesn't have the ability to properly counter the smaller drones.

Tanks certainly still have some use and will likely continue to play some sort of role in armies around the world for the foreseeable future, as long as they evolve to suit new operational needs. Otherwise, they could very much become obsolete in the coming years, as they become even more vulnerable to modern weapon systems and new methods of attack.

Retired Russian colonel Viktor Murakhovsky, still sees tanks as an essential part of any military but concedes that future versions will need to improve. "High-intensity combat operations between technologically comparable countries is unimaginable without the large-scale use of tanks," he said to the Economist. He goes on to suggest that future tanks could use their own drones to extend their sensory capabilities, allowing the operators to see around corners or over obstacles that would pose the possibility of ambush.

This is something that historian Jeremy Black (via Business Insider) also suggests could make tanks more formidable and protect them from both infantry and drone attacks. In essence, a tank would act as a sort of mothership that can launch dozens of drones. In the same article, Paul Scharre says tanks are unlikely to be used in a vanguard role but would instead "probably [be] part of the second wave after we turned those armored columns into rubble."