Does the size of the weapon and the use of Brute Force Really make any difference?
We have come a long way from the times when sheer might and brute strength determined the outcome of a battle during the second world war. The Japanese Battleship, Yamoto was one of the largest Battleships of the second world war, followed, probably by the Bismark and the Tirpitz. All three of the battleships would have struck a psychological fear into the minds of the allies, without even having fired a single round! My father's uncle spoke about how his ship had been struck by one of the shells shot by the Bismark and had been sunk. He, along with others drifted in the ocean onboard lifeboats. He spoke about how the Bismark had become a byword of terror, a veritable Chimera that everyone wanted to get rid of and yet feared to get within the range of its massive guns.
Size is a disadvantage!
Today, countries are working on developing ships that employ stealth technology. Naval Engineers and designers are working on developing hulls that are harder to detect visually, acoustically and through radar. The idea is for the ship to merge or blend into the surroundings rather like the chameleon. One of the biggest flaws of the Yamoto or the Bismark was their sheer size! They were easily spotted from the air by reconnaissance aircraft and then what remained was for allied vessels to lay a trap for them, ambush and attack them from all sides.
Ultimately, all three of these brute battleships were destroyed through the smart tactics of the allied fleet when they came under concerted fire from various ships. But then it was not just Battleships that were built huge during the second world war - tanks too were built huge with the belief that the massive size of the tanks would make them impervious to enemy strikes, also bringing out a psychological advantage thanks to their perceived infallibility. The German Panzer Tanks were some of the most formidable machines of war and they were used in concentrated and massed formations, often achieving success through brute force! The Panther Tank weighing 43 tons and the Tiger II tank weighing at 68 tons were some of the largest tanks of those times.
The long lines of advancing vehicles, often stalled on the Ukrainian roads, often miles long have made them vulnerable to attacks from drones. The same can have been said of long lines of German vehicles stalled on roads leading to the Russian capital during the Second World War.
Mind the mud! The terrain and the climate matter.
However, brute size and brute force have not always led to success, even during the second world war. The huge size of the Battleships of the Axis countries during the second world made them unwieldy and difficult to manoeuvre, no wonder, they required a flotilla of cruisers to escort them. The Tiger Tanks too proved unwieldy and too heavy to drive through the Russian mud during the German invasion of Russia during the Second World War, something that is being echoed in the Russia-Ukraine conflict these days. The Tiger Tanks that had become bogged down in the Russian mud became sitting ducks for the enemy to attack. We all know that the unforgiving Russian winter stalled the advance of Hitler's armies towards Moscow during the Second World War. What we need today are Light tanks that are more manoeuvrable, faster and easier to maintain than the main battle tanks like the T-72 or even the Abrams Main Battle Tank. Tanks like the K-2 Black Panther Tank, Challenger 2, Armata, Merkava MK 4, and the Nr.7 Type 90 though smaller and lighter have, however smart protection and are manoeuvrable in nature. The demands of warfare today have become very different from the past when you probably could take things a bit slow. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has taken rather too long, a testimony, in effect that Brute Warfare Tactics don't promise success in today's times. It is not the size of the Tank or the size of the APC that determines their success in the mission, rather what matters is how fast they can move, and in doing so how well they can evade being hit by drones! Russian Tanks stuck in the mud, or even stuck in the middle of a stalled column of vehicles have been struck at will by the ubiquitous Bayraktar TB2 drones.
Oftentimes, it is the terrain that is a determining factor in today's warfare and not the size of the weapons that you have. The Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict in the late 1980s and the early 1990s proved how ineffective the government's T-55 tanks were in the mountainous regions of the north. When the Eritrean fighters arrived in the capital of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, some of them came riding in the very T-55 tanks that had once belonged to one of the largest armies of Africa. Smart Guerilla tactics employed by the Eritrean Liberation front had led to the defeat of the Ethiopian Army, one of the most well-equipped armies of the continent. The success of the EPLF (Eritrean People's Liberation Front) was also because the mountainous terrain in the north favoured guerrilla warfare. History repeats itself and many leaders forget that they should take into consideration factors like the weather, rains and terrain into consideration. The weather conditions prevented the German Army from taking Moscow because their tanks and infantry vehicles got stuck in the muddy terrain. The extreme cold weather conditions followed by the thawing of the ice, turning fields into muddy slush grounds ground the advance of the Panzer divisions. Napoleon failed to conquer Russia because among other things he failed to take the weather into consideration. The same has happened with the Russia-Ukraine war. We have come across numerous videos on social media purportedly showing Russian Tanks and Armoured Personnel Carriers, (APCs) bogged down in deep mud, easy killing for anti-tank missiles!
Stealth is the Key Word, Can you hide from the Drones and UAVs doing rounds in the skies?
Stealth is a key-word in today's warfare as is clear from what is happening in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Tanks that are immobile are sitting ducks mainly because they are clearly visible to the drones belonging to the Ukrainian forces. Drones are easily able to find these sitting-duck vehicles and they can take their time in targeting them. As such the weapons of choice in modern warfare are UAVs, or Drones that are remotely controlled. Large and powerful tanks have become easy meat for these aerial borne smart weapons, weapons that can move swiftly, undetected, armed with infra-red eyes, and laser-guided missiles. The Bayraktar TB2 drones are relatively smaller drones that have a smaller radar footprint. In many cases, drones are used for surveillance purposes to keep track of enemy positions. These are weapons of choice today, especially if you no longer have a viable airforce with interceptors, fighters, bombers and ground-attack aircraft. The use of drones by the Ukrainian forces has proved to be very effective in the existing conflict.
You are good as long as you have not been found by a missile; size or bulk won't save you!
One very important gamechanger is the use of the NLAW or the Next Generation Anti Tank Weapon, also known as the Main Battle Tank and Light Anti Tank Weapon. The NLAW or MBTNLAW is a light and versatile shoulder-launched fire and forget anti-tank weapon that has spelt the death knell of the Main Battle Tanks of today. There has not been a successful defence from these deadly missiles apart from the rather dubious welding up of canopies with steel slats meant to deflect the primary blast of the missile prior to penetrating the hull of the tank. The NLAWs have a shorter range than the Javelin anti-tank missiles, but then the former missiles are lighter and easier to operate from shorter distances from ambush points.
Portable Smart Weapons are the key to success
There are lessons to be learnt from the Ukraine war and the most important one is that this is the end of the Main Battle Tank. Bulk and size cannot guarantee its safety when attacked by anti-tank missiles. What we need today are lighter and more agile tanks and perhaps what we need more than tanks and piloted aircraft are UAVs, Drones, and man-portable smart fire and forget missiles. We need to work on developing smaller, smarter and less visible midget drones. Midget drones would be a gamechanger especially as they would be cheap, disposable and would not have a significant radar signature! Single-use drones, suicide drones or Kamikaze drones can wreak havoc on advancing forces. Tomorrow's wars will be fought remotely and air superiority will be possible only when you have enough drones to gain control of the skies.
Isolate, Strike and Retreat!
The Wolf-Pack tactic is a well-known strategy employed by most resistance groups throughout history. Guerilla tactics have been employed all over the world throughout history. The use of smart weapons like portable missiles have seen action in Ukraine. We have seen numerous videos purportedly of Ukrainian soldiers attacking isolated tanks and APC with portable anti-tank missiles from specially scouted ambush points, bottlenecks and strategic points. One would have heard of similar tactics being employed by EPLF fighters targeting tanks belonging to the Ethiopian armed forces during the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict during the eighties. The use of portable, easy to use and yet deadly missiles has helped resistance fighters move quickly from one ambush point to another. The same tactic was used by Afghan fighters during the occupation of the country by the armed forces of the erstwhile USSR. Flexibility, compactness and smart planning are important factors that will decide the effectiveness of the defending forces in Ukraine.
Merge with your terrain.
Knowledge of the terrain has a very important role to play whether it is with reference to urban warfare, street to street fighting or even fighting on mountain ranges, open fields, or even forests. It is often reiterated that home defenders have a better idea of ambush points, nooks and crannies, street corners, swamps and wetlands. An advancing army will always be at a disadvantage regarding the unknown terrain of the country that it is invading whereas a defending army is always at an advantage in its home. The EPLF forces knew their terrain very well while fighting the Ethiopian army, they knew each mountain, valley, culvert and overlooking high ground from which to attack advancing platoons.
