Devastating losses to Ukrainian drones and anti-armor weapons have obliterated Moscow’s pre-war fleet, forcing the Kremlin to deploy obsolete equipment as modern T-90M defenses fail under fire.
Reactive armor, various combinations of composite armor materials, advanced gunners’ thermal sights, smoke grenades, and the ability to jam incoming anti-tank missiles are all reported attributes built into the Russian T-90M tank.
However, despite its many stated attributes, the T-90M tanks have been getting obliterated in Ukraine to a massive degree. The overall destruction of tanks and armored vehicles in Ukraine has captured global attention, in large measure due to the use of drone explosives and the success of anti-armor weapons and effective Ukrainian tactics. Russia’s entire tank force has been decimated, to the point where many might be inclined to wonder if Russia’s tank fleet has simply been erased. As part of this equation, the failure of the T-90 in particular seems especially significant given the amount of upgrades which have been built into the platform in recent years.
Entire Active Duty Tank Force – GONE
U.S. Army intelligence has been studying the destruction of Russian tanks for many years, and the rate of loss could be described as somewhat staggering, if ultimately not surprising given modern tactics and innovations. As far back as 2024, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command published an academic report which found that, at that time, Russia’s entire active duty tank force of more than 3,000 tanks … had been destroyed. The Army G2 intel analysis from 2024, called “The Operational Environment 2024-2034 Large-Scale Combat Operations,” states.
“Ukrainian Armed Forces have used vast quantities of man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS), antitank guided missiles, and FPV UAS—combined with fires—to great effect. As of July 2024, Russia has lost 3,197 main battle tanks—more than its entire active-duty inventory at the outset of conflict—and 6,160 armored fighting vehicles, forcing them to pull increasingly obsolescent systems from storage.”
There are many reasons for the devastating loss of Russian tanks, including simple Ukrainian tenacity, tactical proficiency, anti-tank weapons and of course rockets, artillery and armored vehicles. Ukrainian success has raised new questions about modern warfare and the combat utility of the main battle tank. While tanks themselves are likely not going anywhere, the war in Ukraine has highlighted the effectiveness of anti-armor weapons, drone attacks and dismounted maneuver formations.
Future Combined Arms Maneuver
Heavy armored formations and mechanized units engineered for dispersed, yet "linear" attacks to penetrate and hold enemy territory are not likely disappearing anytime soon as a critical element of modern Combined Arms Maneuver, yet there is little question that the warfare in Ukraine is re-defining certain key ground-war tactics in favor of lightweight, de-centralized ground-fired anti-tank weapons and attack drones. These tactics and weapons are particularly effective when used by dispersed, dismounted forces and fast, light tactical vehicles. When combined with precise overhead surveillance, unmanned systems and some measure of effective networking, Ukrainians armed with shoulder-fired anti-armor weapons and hand-launched suicide drones such as the Switchblade, continue to exact a devastating toll upon Russian tanks.
Russia’s use of tanks, which includes T-72s and even old T-55s does not appear to leverage adjusted tactics or upgraded tanks, a circumstance likely responsible for the widespread destruction of its fleet. Certainly Russia is making use of known available protections such as cage armor or reinforced armor against top-down attacks, yet even its most advanced battle tanks are not likely to have been adequately upgraded or maintained. Without sufficient networking, ISR technology and integrated, joint maneuver, Russia’s tanks have proved to be extremely vulnerable. This is in part due to Ukraine’s effective tactical use of anti-amor weapons to stage hit-and-run ambush attacks from dispersed, decentralized dismounted mobile groups of fighters. The tanks Russia is using, therefore, are not likely to have many upgrades and remain quite vulnerable. Also, while Russia employs many attack drones, it is not clear if the Russian Army is executing any kind of adapted or modern Combined Arms Maneuver in any substantial way.
Certainly the world has observed and noted the sheer tenacity, resolve and tactical proficiency with which Ukrainians have defended their country, some of UKraine's success is also likely due to the technological maturation of the weapons themselves in terms of longer-range, more precise sensing, high-fidelity targeting and enhanced munitions and warheads. This is the case for the Javelin and Carl Gustaf as well as other anti-armor weapons. There is also a significant tactical element of this, as Ukrainians have employed ambush-style, surprise hit-and-run tactics using terrain, urban areas and crosspoints to destroying approaching Russian armor.
Tanks Obsolete?
This is also quite likely why the Marine Corps Force Design 2030 favors manned-unmanned teaming and the employment of highly-lethal yet expeditionary, mobile and deployable anti-armor weapons and platforms. Of course the Corps will keep an impactful number of tanks in its arsenal, due to technological advances in networking, unmanned systems and the ability of mechanized forces to increase lethality against armored formations with advanced sensing, explosives and ground-fired targeting. The Corps document favors a greater use of easy to deploy high-speed tactical vehicles armed with extremely precise, lethal and explosive anti-armor weapons. A faster-moving, more dispersed force is not only harder for an enemy armored vehicle to target, but also able to expand the target envelope for attacking forces in terms of angle, speed and maneuver. However, if sufficiently upgraded with advanced networking, unmanned systems, improved active protection, drone launch capability and high-fidelity sensing, main battle tanks are clearly here to stay. There is little to no replacement for the main battle tank when it comes to moving to contact, closing with an enemy, penetrating defenses and “holding” territory in warfare.
Kris Osborn is the Military Technology Editor of 1945. Osborn is also President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University