The Javelin MANPATS (man portable anti-tank system) and its siblings have played a starring role in this war so far. Quick to deploy, easy to learn, easy to carry (relatively), and easy to conceal, it has been a vital contributor to stopping the Russians in their tracks. It’s been so successful some have started to question the value of million dollar tanks that can be blown apart by $100,000 missiles. We have counted the MANPATS entering Ukraine and compared that to the number of Russian armored vehicles estimated to be there. In a way we are counting down to zero Russian tanks. But in a different thread, there was something I noticed. Nobody seems to be paying attention to Russian AT (anti-tank) assets.
Modern AT assets come in four general forms; missile systems, aircraft, guided artillery, and other tanks. The AT guns and tank destroyers seen in WWII are no longer commonly used. The Russians have developed their own MANPATS and also vehicle mounted ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles). But I have seen very little evidence of their usage. Now I don’t have the time Mark and Kos do to crawl through Twitter feeds so my observation could easily be due to limited information. That said, I’m starting to wonder if Russia’s only usable anti-tank assets are its tanks! So maybe we are paying attention. The aircraft are mostly grounded due to graft, logistics, or Ukrainian SAM (surface to air missile) systems. They do seem to be using drones, but it’s hard for me to tell to what extent. I have not heard of the Russian’s extensively using guided artillery. It’s APCs (armored personnel carrier) such as the BMP-3 might have ATGMs mounted to them but I’ve heard nothing of their use. So that leaves its tanks.
My guess as to why we are seeing so few missile systems is that they are generally expensive per shot. Handing out $100,000 munitions to untrained conscripts who quickly learn to steal anything in reach does not seem like a bright idea. I imagine the oligarchs solved that problem by never delivering ACTUAL missiles, instead pocketing the money themselves. There probably are some systems being used in Ukraine by Russia, but I doubt in great quantities. Instead the Russians have gone with the much cheaper AP tank round. But wait, aren’t tanks more expensive than a missile? Well yes, and no.
Russia is a bully. They haven’t really expected to go up against serious enemy armor since its Soviet days. Their wars have been against small enemies who field few if any tanks and would be easily taken out by more numerous Russian tanks or the Russian Air Force as these countries also didn’t have significant anti-aircraft either. In such a setting, the tanks are far more cost effective as it does so many more things than the missile system. It’s armored, throws HE (high explosive) rounds, can mount a machine gun, and generally intimidates anybody who doesn’t have a MANPATS with them. The cost of a few AP (armor piercing) rounds is insignificant if you’re already bringing the tank for all those other purposes. A MANPATS is mostly useless if the enemy doesn’t have any armor. So I don’t think the Russians have much other than tanks (and the aircraft they’re not able to use to their fullest).
This is going to make for a sudden shift coming up. When Russia had the big tank advantage, the Javelin was a great equalizer helping Ukraine defend. The effect was so great we trumpeted the end of the tank as why buy these expensive systems so easily blown up. But now Ukraine has reached tank parity and with the Russians attacking in muddy conditions with Ukraine still fielding numerous MANPATS to go with their armor, the Russian tank losses should accelerate. Someday soon we may see a situation where Russia does not have many tanks left (their reserves have apparently been mostly grifted away). And as their tanks look to be their primary anti-tank weapon, they will soon be out of ways to defeat Ukrainian armor.
When Ukrainian armor is allowed to operate vs Russian forces without anti-tank capability, the world’s militaries will remember again why they like the tank so much. A tank going up against significant anti-tank assets is surprisingly vulnerable. A tank going up against forces without anti-tank assets is the monster of the popular imagination. It will shrug off small arms fire and APC guns. It will stand overwatch as friendly infantry attacks the enemy lines ready to blow up machine guns and other threats.
This is one of the dynamics that leads me to believe that when Ukraine goes on the offensive, it will look a lot different than Russia on the offensive does. Russia has been attacking into more high quality anti-tank assets than has ever been fielded before. The US has given (or is in process) 7,000 Javelins to Ukraine. That’s 1/3rd of the entire US military inventory. And that’s just the US. When Ukraine goes on the offensive, most of Russia’s anti-tank assets (it’s tanks) will already be destroyed. And those which aren’t will still be vulnerable to all those MANPATS.
But the Javelin is not a tank. It’s not armored and doesn’t throw HE shells around. It’s powerful precisely because the tank is powerful. I think this war will change the tank, but I don’t think we’ll see it go away. I think we will see lighter, faster, less armored vehicles. The armor will still be sufficient to shrug off small caliber stuff like 20mm. The richer countries like the US will continue to put money into reactive armor but prioritize the anti missile capability over the defeating AP round capability. They will have the vehicle mounted ATGMs, but a medium sized gun will still have value. Once the enemy AT assets are gone, you want your new tank to still be able to chuck around reasonably sized HE shells. The WWII era 76 or 88 size might come back into usage. Perhaps even the 50mm. But the tank will need to be cheap. You can’t be putting gobs of money into a system that might be defeated by something any enemy might be carrying around with them. Maybe some sort of super tank might emerge if the anti-missile systems become reliable enough, but that does not appear to be the case currently.
So in the coming weeks as Russia loses its tanks faster than ever, don’t be surprised when the Ukrainian tank suddenly looks unbeatable. Oddly enough, it may even have recently been a Russian one. The difference isn’t the tank, its the enemy’s AT assets.
