Abrams M1E3

The world’s heaviest battlefield beasts are suddenly under fire — not from enemy shells, but from the future itself. At this year’s Detroit auto show, the headline act was the new Abrams M1E3, a gleaming symbol of US military power. But many critics now believe it could be the last new heavy tank the US Army ever orders, turning the unveiling into a possible farewell for a battlefield giant.

The shock is spreading fast to Britain. The UK is on the brink of committing to its own steel monster, the Challenger 3, an £11m, nearly 80-ton tank built for the digital age. Yet its future is hanging by a thread, with the contract for full production suspended and fears that the Starmer government, in a new “welfare not warfare” mood, could pull the plug.

Almost a century after tanks first rumbled into combat, their dominance is being openly questioned. The brutal lessons of the war in Ukraine are at the heart of the doubts. Time and again, Russian and Ukrainian tanks — including Abrams M1s and Challenger 2s — have been knocked out by cheap drones costing less than a tank’s ammunition magazines.

Ukraine claims to have destroyed more than 11,000 Russian tanks in under four years of fighting. That figure is likely exaggerated, but verified reporting still puts Russian losses between 3,800 and 4,000 tanks. That is equivalent to 140% of the tanks Russia had when it launched its full-scale invasion on 24 February 2022.

One of Russia’s top strategists, General Yuri Baluyevsky, delivered a withering verdict last month. “It is not clear what battlefield utility can be had from a vulnerable vehicle, with a limited armament, that approaches a fighter jet in cost,” he said. His words underline the growing belief that traditional armour is becoming an expensive liability.

Russia is already struggling to build or repair the 200 tanks it needs each month as frontline replacements, according to the Institute for the Study of War. Ukraine has kept quiet about its own losses, but they are known to be heavy. The failure of massed armour helps explain why Russian forces made so little progress last year, gaining roughly 0.08% of Ukrainian territory at the cost of more than 415,000 battle casualties.

Drones and electronic warfare have transformed the battlefield. The front now stretches for nearly 825 miles and is at least 25 miles deep, creating a zone where almost every movement can be tracked and targeted. This has triggered serious questions not just about tanks, but also about attack helicopters like the Apache AH-64 and Russia’s Mi-24 Hind and Mi-28 Havoc.

Yet tanks were never meant to fight alone. They first appeared at the Battle of the Somme in 1916 as mobile pillboxes, crawling forward to shield infantry. A year later at Cambrai, massed tanks broke through German lines, helping to create a new style of warfare that lasted for generations.

That doctrine evolved into combined air and armour attacks, perfected by British officer JFC “Boney” Fuller and later adopted by Nazi Germany as Blitzkrieg. Tanks dominated battlefields from North Africa to Normandy and across Eastern Europe, with the biggest clashes in Kursk and Kharkov in 1943.

Even in 1991, US AirLand doctrine — an updated Blitzkrieg — smashed Iraqi forces in Kuwait using massed tanks, artillery, helicopters and air power. But the rise of drones now threatens to upend that formula.

A senior British general, speaking privately, says it is not the end — but it is a revolution. Tanks and armoured carriers are still needed to “drive to work” on the battlefield, he said, but massing them is no longer viable. Ukraine has shown that concentration makes armour an easy target.

Instead, tanks must be combined with autonomous systems and shielded by cheap, disposable drones. Ukraine has announced plans to build or buy 4.5 million drones a year, underlining how central unmanned systems have become.

Russia has tried to rely on small special forces units to seize frontline towns like Pokrovsk, but they have been pushed back. To hold ground, commanders still need discreet, well-concealed tank support. Ukrainian tactics now see tanks waiting, then moving in to protect troops, echoing their original role as mobile pillboxes.

Attempts to armour tanks against drones have struggled. Russia’s so-called “hedgehog tanks,” layered with top protection, have failed. One experimental “Frankenstein” vehicle resisted several drone swarms but was ultimately destroyed.

In Britain, the debate is now fierce. The Army is weighing whether to proceed with the full order of 140 Challenger 3 tanks, with some arguing it should be cut in half. Commanders also say more money is needed for AI-driven and fully autonomous robotic weapons that can fly and move on the ground.

Despite everything, officers with frontline experience warn against writing tanks off. One British officer told The i Paper it is not extinction, but evolution. Just as dinosaurs became birds, he said, future tanks may become small tracked robots, and helicopters may shrink into drones — but the transformation will take time.

Key Takeaways

• Drones in Ukraine are destroying tanks cheaply, shaking faith in heavy armour.

• Britain’s £11m Challenger 3 faces uncertainty as warfare tactics evolve.

• Military leaders say tanks are not dead — but must radically adapt to survive.

Britain is wasting money on tanks. Ukraine has the solution

Not only tanks will be obsolete also fighter planes will be a thing of the past.

Soon the new planes will be flying without a pilot,pilots pass out during extreme turns

because of the G-forces.

Drones and lasers will be the next weapons that will be important.

Also robots will be used, people will be able to rage war from their couch.

Dunno where I'd keep the water...