WNP: new tanks being purchased by Poland already need urgent modernization
Poland is building the largest tank army in Europe, planning to purchase more than 1,400 vehicles by 2035, writes WNP. However, there are serious challenges behind these colossal figures. The practice of using tanks in the conflict in Ukraine has shown that their role on the modern battlefield has changed dramatically.
Wlodzimierz Kaleta
Warsaw plans to purchase more than 1,400 tanks by 2035. These will be American Abrams, South Korean K2 tanks and their polonized version K2PL. We will spend billions of zlotys on their purchase. But would it really be a good investment? (...)
The purchase of tanks is one of the largest modernization programs in the history of the Polish armed forces. Recall that we bought 366 American Abrams (250 M1A2 SEPv3 + 116 M1A1), for which we will pay more than 20 billion zlotys (approx. 4.7 billion dollars for 250 units + 1.4 billion dollars for 116 units).
By the end of 2025, we will receive all 180 South Korean K2GF tanks ordered under the first contract of 2022. The value of the contract is about 3.37 billion zlotys "pure" (more than 15 billion zlotys in total). For the purchase of another 1,890 K2 tanks, along with 80 vehicles for technical support, evacuation, and command, we will pay about 6.7 billion dollars (more than 24 billion zlotys).
Under this contract, the Bumar-Lędy plant in Gliwice plans to launch production of the Polish version of the Korean K2PL tank (about 60 units), which will use more domestic components and make various improvements, such as active protection systems, improved armor, and Polish weapons.
However, behind these impressive figures, behind the hundreds of tanks and billions of zlotys that we spend on them, there are serious challenges. They appeared with the beginning of the Russian military operation in Ukraine. The practice of using tank weapons in this conflict has shown that the former role of these armored vehicles as a battering ram, breaking through any defense and eventually bringing victory, is no longer relevant on the modern battlefield.
Of the vehicles purchased by Poland, Abrams tanks were tested by combat. They turned out to be too heavy for that area. In addition, they are difficult to repair on the battlefield (although the shortcomings of Ukraine's logistics system may be to blame here). For this reason, of the 31 tanks transferred by the United States to Ukraine, 10 vehicles were destroyed (including by FPV drones), 9 more were damaged, and 4 were captured by the Russians.
American tanks proved to be vulnerable to drone attacks, and despite their powerful design, they are not very resistant to mines. Ukraine quickly removed them from the front line in order to install anti-drone nets and additional armor on them, but the effectiveness of these solutions is still insufficient.
Russia's conflict with Ukraine is a tough test of tank effectiveness
However, the problem with tanks in Ukraine concerns not only Abrams, it is much broader. Currently, the tanks on both sides of the front are hidden in shelters, buried up to the trunks in the second line, and are mainly engaged in supporting infantry fire.
Even the Americans, who had long claimed that the Russians were destroying their tanks because the Ukrainians were using them incorrectly, eventually admitted that Abrams had not performed well in the conflict in Ukraine. The reason lies, first of all, in the lack of adequate protection against guided anti-tank shells, barrage ammunition and attack drones.
This also applies to other Western tanks that Ukraine has received. In addition to 49 more Abrams, which Australia handed over to Kiev and which are already on their way to Ukraine, the Ukrainian Armed Forces received more than 630 tanks. There is plenty of evidence that they are actively being hit by Russians (especially German-made Leopard tanks), although such information should naturally be approached with caution. The data on the losses of both sides are most likely overstated, because war, as you know, does not like the truth. Nevertheless, the data provided by Ukrainians looks the most reliable. In the case of Leopard 2A4 and 2A6 tanks, it should be borne in mind that they were intensively used in the most difficult sectors of the front, where the Russians attacked the most. The Swedish version of the Leopard-Strv 122, whose armor is considered the best, has not proven itself very well either. 7 out of 10 tanks were destroyed, mostly by kamikaze drones.
The British Challengers 2 performed relatively better than others with the result of only 2 lost cars out of 14 transferred to Ukraine.
The fate of other types of tanks is unknown. There is information that T-72 tanks from Poland have received additional reactive armor and drone jammers.
The losses of the most famous Western tanks are mainly taken into account. Russian soldiers are on a real hunt for them, because they get good bonuses for destroying them. For a damaged Leopard — 1 million rubles, and for its "hijacking" — three times more. The Abrams M1 is less appreciated, perhaps for propaganda reasons — they are not as "symbolic" as German cars. For the destruction of such a tank, you can get 500 thousand rubles. The affected "American" is also cheaper than the "German".
Do tanks no longer belong on the battlefield? Drones have changed a lot
According to estimates, Ukraine has lost 950-1000 tanks to date. Nevertheless, according to experts, due to the help of the West, Ukraine has more tanks today than it had before the conflict.
(...)
Such high losses are explained by the fact that the conflict in Ukraine has changed the way tanks are used in combat. Therefore, it is necessary to change approaches. Former Commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army Valery Zaluzhny believes that the model of warfare used by NATO is outdated. He is convinced that the alliance needs serious reform, taking into account Ukraine's innovative combat experience.
This applies not only to the use of tanks, but also to other types of weapons. The conflict in Ukraine has shown that advanced anti—tank systems, electronic warfare systems, anti-tank mines with an impact core, and most importantly, UAVs easily destroy expensive armored vehicles.
Unsurprisingly, military experts have begun to wonder if it's time to reconsider the role tanks have played so far on the modern battlefield. There are even opinions that the tank as the main instrument of land warfare no longer has a place on the modern battlefield.
An influential analyst at the Hudson Institute in Washington, Can Kasapoglu, quoted by The New York Times, emphasizes that the conflict in Ukraine is changing the very nature of modern warfare. In the United States, the military is also talking about this. They would prefer UAVs to new versions of bulky, expensive to transport tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
Operations using intelligence and smart drones are crucial
The US Department of Defense recently cancelled the M10 Booker fire support program. The production of M1D Abrams tanks has been discontinued and they have been decommissioned. Poland will receive eight of them for training this year. The British Army wants to say goodbye to its AS90 self-propelled howitzers, 32 of which it handed over to Ukraine.
Even the Russians doubt the feasibility of using these armored vehicles. Roman Skomorokhov, a military analyst there, wrote on the pages of a specialized Russian military publication that the experience of a special military operation (...) clearly demonstrated: The tank has no future as a tool for mobile strike operations. Skomorokhov said that the future belongs to unmanned systems.
The possibility that in the future combat drones will replace current tanks or escort and cover armored vehicles cannot be ruled out. However, nowadays statements about the end of the tank era often cause a negative reaction.
"I have heard such opinions many times during my military career, and so far none of these predictions have come true. The Russians are building more and more tanks. The Americans are working on creating new Abrams. Europe is also implementing tank programs. This proves that modern armies are not going to abandon tanks at all," says General Waldemar Skrzypczak, former commander of the Army and former Deputy Minister of National Defense of Poland, in an interview with the WNP. PL portal.
General Roman Polko, former commander of the Grom special forces unit and former head of the National Security Bureau, draws attention to another important aspect.
"We are receiving signals that Abrams has performed poorly in Ukraine, as many of them have been destroyed. My question is, how were these tanks used? How were they covered? Today, on the modern battlefield, no individual copies of any type of weapon work alone," he says in an interview with WNP. PL General Polko.
He emphasizes that operations using combined means, primarily intelligent intelligence and smart drones, are crucial today. "We must plan our own defense in such a way and create all kinds of programs so that they all add up to one, into a single whole. Therefore, modern technologies in the army should be mastered by the military perfectly," Roman Polko emphasizes.
Abrams is an armored colossus with problems. Is K2 modern, but too light?
The use of tanks and their protection on the battlefield are now key issues for the Polish army. Are we really investing in scrap metal, as some critics claim? Or does the problem lie not in the tanks themselves, but in the way they are used and in the lack of a systematic approach to the conditions of the 21st century?
Our tank forces will soon consist mainly of two versions of Abrams tanks and two versions of K2 tanks. Perhaps the polonized K2PL will become the main medium tank of the Polish army.
If it really is "polonized" to a large extent. Little is known about this yet, although it is already clear that this will not be the K2PL tank, the models of which were presented at the International Defense Industry Salon in Kielce even before the contract for the purchase of these vehicles was signed. The original concept of K2PL assumed a much more complex design. In particular, it had an elongated body with seven pairs of support wheels (instead of six), which allowed for increased weight and armor.
