Don't Tanks Matter Anymore?

Is the End of Armored Troops Coming?

The deplorable situation that armored units have fallen into in recent wars, I think, has drawn the attention of everyone who has a close or distant relationship with the military profession. This state of armored units, which is clearly seen in the ongoing battles in Ukraine; “Is it the end of armored troops?” begs the question. Some of the questions asked, “Where do you get this from? It is impossible for tanks and armored vehicles to disappear!” I can hear what you're saying. But such a radical change has happened before.

Horse chariots, considered the ancestors of armored combat vehicles, disappeared after dominating the battlefields for more than a thousand years (2000 years or even longer according to some studies). Because, as a result of the developments in the organizational structure of the armies and their weapons, vehicles and equipment, the chariots became useless. These cars, which were both very expensive to supply and maintain, gradually disappeared from the inventories of the armies as they lost their functionality. Why not the same for tanks and armored combat vehicles?

Superiority of Decisive Battles and Siege Maneuvers:

Moreover, the tanks were not used for that long. The appearance of tanks on battlefields dates back to 100 years ago, to the First World War. All the countries participating in the First World War had prepared their armies to achieve results with short-term decisive battles and siege maneuvers. Because the wars that took place in Europe in the 19th century were made in this way. These were wars in which Prussia secured German unity.

The Prussian army, led by Chief of Staff Moltke, defeated Denmark, Austria-Hungary and France in short-term and decisive battles, respectively, and brought a great movement to the war. However, in the same period, there were also some developments that the European states overlooked or ignored. The developments in war weapons and vehicles reached a level that would cause significant breaks in wars, and the effect of this was clearly seen in some wars.

Defense Superiority: Pleven Defense

For example, Osman Pasha in the Pleven Defense; With earthen bastions, zigzag earthen emplacements he dug, obstacles placed in front of the positions and dam fires he planned, he tied the Russian army in front of the city for a long time and inflicted heavy casualties. The American Civil War between 1861 and 1865 also resulted in battles of attrition, not maneuvers. European armies preferred not to see them, probably because they despised the Ottoman and American armies.

But as soon as the war started, it became clear that they had made a big mistake. Issues such as the increase in the use of wire barriers in defense, the widespread use of earthen positions and fortifications that are easily dug into the ground; it allowed the defending side to settle into the field easily, while prolonging the time for the attacking side to reach the enemy positions from the offensive position. For some time, the invention of rifles and encapsulated shells, the use of rapid-fire cannons, and the development of machine guns had led to an extraordinary increase in firepower and rate of fire. This situation brought great losses to the offensive forces, which had to move forward for longer periods of time than before, in order to reach the defensive positions by overcoming the wire barriers.

Frontline Wars:

This situation; made combat operations in the form of siege, splitting, exploiting success-following impossible. As a result, battles began to be conducted in the form of frontal attacks and battles of position/battles of attrition. Thus, the war became a stagnant stalemate, in which only tiny bits of land could be captured despite heavy casualties.

Tank Invented, Frontline Wars Over:

The parties developed new doctrines, tactics and strategies to find a solution to this situation. In addition, some new weapons were used for the first time on the battlefields. In this context, weapons and vehicles such as poisonous gases, incendiary bombs and flamethrowers emerged. In addition, technologies were also worked on that would take the troops to the defensive positions quickly and without casualties by breaking through the wire barriers in the face of intense firepower. The most important development in this regard was the invention of tanks.

Tanks were first invented and used by the British. Naturally, the Germans also developed the first anti-tank guns. Although tanks were used in the First World War, they did not have a major impact on the outcome of the war, as new doctrines and concepts had not yet been developed. However, after the war, there were some people who realized the potential of these new weapons and said that they should be worked on. These ideas were first put forward by British officers, but the British government did not take them seriously enough.

Lightning War Concept:

The Germans understood the potential of the weapon well and placed emphasis on the construction of tanks and armored vehicles on the one hand, and on the development of new doctrines and concepts for their use, on the other. In this way, the Germans inflicted heavy defeats on their enemies thanks to the "Lightning War" concept they implemented with their Panzer Units in the Second World War. Thereupon, the British, Americans and Russians had to focus on the production of tanks and armored vehicles and the formation of units consisting of them.

When the war ended, all armies now consisted of tanks and armored combat vehicle units. Armored personnel carriers began to be produced so that the infantry units could keep up with the speed of these vehicles and reach the offensive position by taking advantage of the armor protection. Until the end of the Cold War, nearly all armies were organized into armored and mechanized units, and their doctrine, tactics and strategy were developed accordingly.

Post-Cold War Armies Shrinked:

When the Cold War ended, the world entered an atmosphere of peace. With the effect of this, armies were shrunk, and the number of tanks and mechanized vehicles was reduced, considering that large armored units were unnecessary, especially in European countries. As non-combat operations such as peacekeeping and counterterrorism have become widespread; armies began to be equipped with tactical wheeled armored vehicles that provide protection against light weapons, commonly used classical rocket launchers and mines/IEDs.

This fantasy world that the world has entered received the first blow with Russia's attack in Georgia with large armored units in 2008, but most of NATO and European countries did not take this event in the Caucasus, which is quite far from them, seriously enough. However, in 2014, Russia's invasion of Crimea and the establishment of satellite states in the Donbas region shocked Europe and woke it up from the sleep that it did not want to wake up.

The Russian Threat Caused a Return to Tanks and Armored Vehicles:

Thereupon, it started to focus on the production of tanks and armored vehicles. On the other hand, there was an increase in the technology and production amount of anti-tank weapons. However, countries such as Germany, whose state system was specially arranged so that it could not develop its army, could not make a significant increase in their defense budgets despite their decisions in this direction. However, the Russian attack on Ukraine mobilized these states, and the European states began to take some measures that pointed to a new arms race.

It is obvious that these countries, which have started to rearm, need to think very carefully when forming and equipping their armies. Procuring classic armored vehicles and tanks again would probably be a waste of effort. Because in recent battles, tanks and armored combat vehicles do not seem to have worked very well. The events experienced in these wars indicate that the battlefield is on the verge of a radical change.

SİHA and Tanks:

One of the wars that marked this change took place in Libya. Deciding to support the official Libyan government, which was said to have almost collapsed at that time, Turkey sent a few armored vehicles, a few self-propelled guns and a few SİHAs to Libya in the first place. Although the number of weapons sent was quite low, these weapons had an asymmetrical effect on the course of the war and the central government managed to not only avoid the danger of falling, but also to recapture many regions from General Haftar's forces. In these battles, SİHAs were used collectively and intensively like the air force. The results of this revealed that tanks are very vulnerable against SİHAs.

Another important experience was experienced in Syria. When many soldiers were martyred as a result of Russian planes or Syrian planes acting on their orders hitting Turkish positions, the Turkish army took action. Due to various inconveniences of bringing air force planes into Syria, Turkey launched an intense and uninterrupted attack with SİHAs against Syrian positions and vehicles. This attack showed that when SİHAs are used in this way, tanks and armored vehicles do not stand a chance. In addition, the Pansir air defense systems of the Russians could not be effective on the SİHAs.

The last experience was in the Karabakh war. This war was the war in which the magnitude of the impact of SİHAs was most evident. The Armenians, who said before the war that they would "go as far as Baku if there was a war", relying on the fact that they had much more tanks and armored vehicles than the Azerbaijan army, realized that this was not the case as soon as the war started. Because SİHAs hit almost all Armenian tanks and armored vehicles. Since the Armenian soldiers did not dare to get on these vehicles, those who were not shot could not be used.

When we look at the Ukraine war, it is understood that SİHAs were also effective in this war. Russia, which has a powerful air force and air defense system incomparable with Libya, Syria and Armenia.

He claims that he was able to prevent these attacks, even partially. However, in this war, the ground troops of the Russian army had to face another threat from SİHAs. This threat is a new generation of shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons. So many tanks and armored vehicles were destroyed with these weapons that the Russians could not hide their casualties.

SİHA Attacks Tanks Are Ineffective:

These examples show that the dominance of tanks and armored vehicles on the battlefield for 100 years has been shaken. Now, probably, technology organizations and military institutions of many countries have started to think about this issue. But their work seems quite difficult. Because it has become clear that tanks and armored vehicles are nowhere near strong.

This is because attacks are made against tanks and armored vehicles from all directions. SİHAs hit the tank from the top, which is the weakest part. Some of the new generation anti-tank weapons also attack tanks and armored vehicles from above. Classical anti-tank weapons, on the other hand, can be effective with shots fired from the sides, front and rear. In some videos about the Ukraine war, it is seen that some of the armored vehicles were destroyed by remote-controlled mines or IEDs. So the bottom of the tank is not safe either.

Protection of Tanks and Armored Vehicles:

As a remedy, some new techniques, tactics and technologies can be developed. Further development of reactive armors could be a method. Tanks can be fitted with jammers to confuse remote attack systems. Electromagnetic defense systems can be developed to bring down UAVs or cut their communication. The number of personnel can be reduced by making the tanks smaller. Thus, more tanks that are harder to hit can be used. The speed of tanks and armored vehicles can be increased. These and many other measures can be taken, but it is clear that none of them will provide a definitive solution to the problem.

Special Forces Highlights:

In order to find a solution to this problem, it will probably be necessary to make significant changes in the organizational structures of the armies. Increasing the number of special units consisting of professional soldiers by reducing the number of armored vehicles and tanks seems to be a step in this direction. As a matter of fact, the Azerbaijani army attacked the Armenian army in Karabakh, with a weighted infantry organization and Special Forces Special Forces and Commando troops against the Armenian army. This organization has been successful with the effect of the rugged and wooded land structure.

The fact that today's battles are taking place mostly in the form of residential area battles also necessitates such an organization. Because it is very easy to destroy tanks and armored vehicles in a residential area. For example, in Ukraine, it is reflected in the videos published on the internet that these vehicles were destroyed with a molotov cocktail made from half a bottle of gasoline and half a bottle of oil. For this reason, the residential area operation is an operation that should be carried out with infantry and special units consisting of professional soldiers. This was clearly seen in Syria and trench operations.

Conclusion:

As a result, tanks and armored units are now faced with a great challenge on the battlefield. This situation has led to a deadlock in army organizations, doctrines and concepts based on armored units. In order to overcome this impasse, it has emerged as an inevitable necessity to develop these tools technologically and to innovate in organizational structures, doctrines and concepts.