War in Ukraine exposes weaknesses in Russian military | GARY COSBY JR.
Early in the war in Ukraine, President Joe Biden ruled out sending tanks to Ukraine, indicating it could spark a broader war. Now, one year into the conflict, both Germany and the United States are sending our best battle tanks for use by the Ukrainian army as Western military officials predict Russian President Vladimir Putin will launch a new spring offensive against Ukraine.
What changed? Essentially, it is the perception of Russia’s military. Biden’s statement was made at a time when the world still feared and respected Russia’s armed forces. If this war has done nothing else, it has certainly exposed the Russian military, especially the army, as being out of date in terms of training, communication, equipment, and tactics.
A war that Russia no doubt expected to be over in weeks, if not days, is a year old. The Russian military has experienced embarrassing setbacks across the board on the ground, in the air and at sea. The supposed superpower has been repeatedly humbled by a better trained and more highly motivated Ukrainian army that is increasingly better equipped with NATO-supplied weapons.
One thing the war has clearly shown is that tanks are highly susceptible to anti-armor missiles. Those portable weapons have played havoc with Russian armored formations. Due to the design of the T-72 tank that has been the most universally deployed by the Russians, a hit to the turret area causes a nearly immediate detonation of the ammunition, literally blowing the turret off the tank and killing the crew.
A recent analysis of tank losses by the International Institute for Strategic Studies indicates the Russians have lost about 1,700 tanks, half of their available tank fleet. A slightly more up-to-the-moment analysis suggests that number is closer to 2,000 tanks. Some analysts say the Russians have suffered as many as 2,300 tank losses. Many of these are the T-72 tanks originally developed during the Cold War era. The highly touted T-14 tank has not been deployed and may not be available in sufficient numbers according to Western military analysts who point to Russia’s propensity to announce the development of new weapons then to either underproduce or not produce them at all.
The addition of Western main battle tanks into the mix might be a turning point for the Ukrainians. Since the tank made its first appearance on the battlefield in France during First World War I, these mobile fortresses have formed a critical link in ground combat strategy. As such, they have become primary targets for opposing armies.
The development of anti-armor missile systems has been a revelation on the battlefield in Ukraine. Although the American M1 Abrams and the German Leopard are widely regarded as among the best in the world, they will also be subjected to Russian anti-armor missiles. Not since the heaviest combat in the Persian Gulf when M1 formations faced the Iraqi Republican Guard has the American main battle tank been tested in large-scale direct armored combat.
I was speaking to one of my sons recently who is a cavalry scout in the U.S. Army. He is in a “light” unit, meaning they do not use the Stryker armored fighting vehicle or the Bradley fighting vehicle used by the “heavy” cavalry scout units.
More: Culture wars: How shall we then live? | GARY COSBY JR.
My son said he preferred it that way because those impressive heavy fighting vehicles are targets for the enemy. He preferred his chances fighting from the JLTV or the Humvee, light vehicles that can move fast and themselves often mount anti-armor missile systems.
The latest production of the M1 is the M1A2 SEP v3. That’s a whole lot of military acronyms to say that this tank will kick butt and take names; however, anti-armor missile technology creates a legitimate question as to the long-term effectiveness of battlefield armored units in the face of these deadly weapons systems.
Each war brings with it revelations of strengths and weaknesses, new weapons and weapons systems, and innovations in things such as battlefield medical care. World War I brought us the tank. World War II was the debut of aircraft carrier and naval air power. Korea and Vietnam introduced the helicopter and air mobile warfare, as well as air evac for wounded soldiers.
Smart weapons and stealth technology made their battlefield debut in Operation Desert Storm. Drones capable not only of surveillance but also of attacking with missiles appeared in Afghanistan and Iraq in post 9-11 operations.
This war has provided a real-world test for several new missile related technologies. It would appear that the main battle tank, stalwart of the battlefield, might well be close to entering the endangered species list. This begs the question, how will future armies fight and with what will they conduct their warfare?
The increasingly high-tech style of warfare may negate some need for the boots-on-the-ground approach. Speaking as the parent of a soldier, I’m all for risking drones over my son’s blood, but the war in Ukraine has proved that the soldier is still the most important weapon on the field. The fighting spirit of the Ukrainian army, when combined with high-tech weapons, has proved more than a match for Russia.
Gary Cosby Jr. is the photo editor of The Tuscaloosa News. Readers can email him at gary.cosby@tuscaloosanews.com.
This article originally appeared on The Tuscaloosa News: War in Ukraine exposes weaknesses in Russian military
