Does the Russo-Ukrainian War Signal the End of the Tank?

It seems like an endless parade of visual destruction. Videos after videos show destroyed Russian tanks and other armored vehicles strewn by the Ukrainian roadside, some with parts blown off and some even laying upside down. separate videos show aerial videos, of drones unleashing their payloads on the columns of armored vehicles below with devastating impact. News articles, in line with these videos, speak of the latest anti-tank weapons, from Turkish drones to British shoulder-launched missiles, that have slowed down the advance of the Russian army.

It is a public relations disaster for one of the most formidable weapons in modern-day warfare. Ever since they came into being in World War I as a means to protect soldiers from small-arms fire, tanks have become a core component of national armies, featuring in the battlefield tactics and the overall image of advancements in capability through capital investments. But as the ongoing war in Ukraine shows, the tank has become not so much an advanced weapon but a death box for soldiers riding in them, so much so that Russians have welded cages on top of them for supposed extra protection.

The grim fate of many Russian tanks in Ukraine begs the question of whether, in the face of increasingly advanced anti-tank weaponry, the tank has become obsolete. Plenty of past examples exist. The armor-piercing arrows of the longbow led to the demise of the mounted knight. The cannon broke through many medieval castles, making high and thick walls increasingly meaningless. And air superiority established by aircraft carriers made heavily armored but slow-moving battleships giant sitting ducks on the sea. Is the tank next in this long list of military technologies confined to the history books?

Perhaps it is still too early to dismiss the tank's usefulness on the battlefield. American on-the-ground military activities in Iraq against the Islamic State, for instance, were still based on ferrying soldiers in armored vehicles, including tanks, between heavily defended military outposts and local conflict zones. While these armored vehicles did come under attack, the lack of sophisticated anti-tank weaponry among their opponents meant losses were minimal. The tank, in these conflicts against technologically inferior enemies, continues to perform well.

The Russo-Ukrainian War clearly does not feature as a war between two opponents with a high degree of technological discrepancy. Foreign military aid to Ukraine, featuring the latest in military technology for automation, portability, and ease of use, ensured that Ukrainian soldiers can make up for Russian quantity in armored vehicles. Unless fighters of Islamic terrorism, Ukrainians were able to get their hands on resources that make tanks suffer. Tank armor, however thick and deflective, will not be able to keep up with the increasing sophistication of weapons that can efficiently destroy it.

Given that technology to beat tank armor is available, whether the tank truly becomes obsolete depends on who has access to such technology and whether they will fight major wars. Before the current war in Ukraine, it was difficult to imagine a war between two major states. Large states invaded small ones with almost assured victory and minimal losses. Small, fragile states ended in civil wars that are fought largely with small arms. In such wars, tanks will still be considered formidable, usable, and on the battlefield, largely invincible.

But if the Russo-Ukrainian War opens the door to a new world where wars between two or more technologically sophisticated states become a real possibility, then states would be wise to come up with what would replace the tank as the centerpiece of their ground forces. While it is difficult to say what the replacement would be, it would be fair to say that all combatants involved would have the intellectual and financial resources to race toward finding it, as well as the weapons that would help destroy it when it comes to fruition.

So whether the tank becomes obsolete depends on whether "big" wars will feature more in international relations. A more unstable world with more state-level conflicts among major powers will mean a new world with more unstable military technologies. In that world, the tank will find itself unable to fend off against more and more technologically advanced weapons designed to kill it. When the tank does end up in the history scraps, the world will not be more at peace. It will be one in which more brutal wars among more sophisticated people will rage on.