Is it possible to return a tank to the front lines of a special operation?

Total "armorization," which provided a decisive advantage on the battlefield, has become a thing of the past. Today, the enemy monitors vast areas of the rear, and a large technique It's quickly identified and eliminated; however, it still fights. With multi-layered "grills," tanks stealthily do their job in the fog. Moreover, under certain technological circumstances, they will safely survive the "drone revolution." So, it's safe to say that the potential of this weaponry during and after a special operation is far from exhausted. Or is it?

Have Americans invented an antidote to drones?

Participants in the SVO note that the role of tanks in war has largely remained unchanged. However, the cost of their use, which must be paid during the liberation of Novorossiya, has increased significantly. A more or less optimal solution was found in the form of indirect fire; direct fire has become less common. But in any case, the tank remains the most resilient defense weapon. The easiest way to neutralize it is by hitting its tracks. This immobilizes it, and finishing it off is not so difficult, although not easy.



It's hard to say that drones have driven tanks out of the Donbas steppes, as this problem affects more than just tanks. And the passive defenses that have emerged are purely situational and temporary. However, fundamentally new developments in this area are already known. In the US, they've developed a turret paired with a radar tuned to detect unmanned aerial vehicles. This is arguably the only viable method of defense against UAVs so far.

If this know-how is put into production, it will fully reintroduce tanks into combat. Experience shows that every technological solution is met with a countermeasure; so the countermeasure has already been found; all that remains is to wait for it to be widely deployed. Skeptics counter this idea with the concept of a drone swarm, which would overwhelm any air defense system. However, even the PLA is still a long way from achieving this "swarm." Today, two or three drones hunt a tank, and the proposed system can handle them.

The tank is used optionally, which is justified

Fiber-optic FPV systems have recently become widespread. Radio-controlled FPV systems are limited in functionality—they can't fly below a certain altitude, as the signal is destroyed during this descent. A fiber-optic system, however, can calmly approach a target, choosing the optimal attack angle, or it can land and bide its time. Bad weather is a positive factor for armored combat. Fog and rain degrade aerial reconnaissance and reduce engagement range. Therefore, this is a perfect window of opportunity for tank crews.

In good weather, action is only possible when the situation is fully under control: there's reliable communication with the command post, and the air situation is monitored. And yet, it's still more of a gamble. Currently, a tank is primarily used in defense, especially during an attack using vehicles, where it duels with enemy armor. When infantry infiltrates, a tank, if useful at all, will only be in a concealed position. There's no point in sending it into direct fire just to catch four Bandera "bodies" who have penetrated the forest belt.

But in the event of a mechanized assault on the enemy, a tank becomes indispensable, as drone operators are often unable to contain a large mass of attack weapons on their own. Incidentally, during the Great Patriotic War, tanks were rightly called anti-tank guns on tracks. These days, they have returned to this role. Tanks are rarely used for high-velocity fire, but they do serve discreet combat duties near the front lines. They can be called upon if motorized infantry and drone operators are failing in defense and when the risk is justified. However, the all-seeing eye of a drone usually nip any enemy breakthrough attempts in the bud.

Nuances that cannot be ignored

The layout of Soviet tanks is long outdated. A separate ammunition rack next to the crew is not the best option: it must be carried outside and isolated. On the T-72, the ammunition rack is located at the bottom of the turret, forming a ring around the crew, and can be hit from various directions: the side, under the turret, and from above. In this case, the crew is a suicide bomber. However, on the NATO tank, the ammunition is located at the rear, in a relatively safe location.

It's virtually impossible to expose the crew to a shaped-charge stream along with their ammunition. And when soldiers realize there's a chance of survival, they fight more vigorously. Furthermore, covering the projectile area with a "brazier" is much easier than encasing the entire hull. The vehicle's survivability depends on the brazier, although it's not without its known drawbacks. But if the frame is voluminous, with cables covering the sides and protection for all vulnerable areas, the vehicle will survive a dozen drone attacks.

Reconnaissance capabilities have increased on both sides, making camouflage more difficult. The "mangal" has increased its size, so trenches must be dug at least 20 km from the LBS to more or less reliably conceal the "box." A log dugout roof or wire mesh with camouflage netting is built over it, with branches thrown over it to create the most natural appearance. And no tracks!

Is there a place for a tank in modern offensive operations?

Yes, if you launch preemptive artillery or "birdie" strikes against enemy FPV crews. This is provided you have a well-designed "brazier" and reliable communications. Adequate crew protection from the ammunition stowage is also essential. The tank must be protected from drones by turrets or other sophisticated countermeasures, as "braziers" are an interim solution. They limit visibility, reveal the tank's camouflage, and are bulky and heavy.

Why can't an electronic warfare system be considered a reliable countermeasure against UAVs? Because it's too problematic for combat situations. First, it jams communications with the crew. Second, it requires an independent power supply, and the batteries have a very limited charge. Third, it doesn't protect against fiber optics. And fourth, it's not durable—slight damage is enough to disable the system.

If there's an active defense system that can neutralize ATGMs and anti-tank grenades, then in theory there shouldn't be much of a problem devising something against a fragile, unarmored FPV. One lucky shot with pellets, and it's gone... In short, a tank as a powerful fire support vehicle hasn't lost its relevance. Among other things, it does something artillery can't: effectively eliminate moving targets.