Despite agreement on the causes and triggers for the outbreak of wars or conflicts between states or within a state's territory, whether over resources, borders, power, or other factors, there is disagreement on the tools and tactics used in these conflicts. This is largely due to the evolution of military concepts, tools, and equipment, which was linked to the technological and military revolution. This has prompted strategists and military personnel to consider future wars, their forms, the limitations of change, and if heavy weapons still play a role or whether the requirements of the era may compel them to back down.
Heavy weapons are defined as any weapons that are massive and heavy enough that troops cannot carry them, such as tanks, cannons, helicopters, jet fighters, submarines, and warships. These weapons are employed in direct battle and combine multiple military needs (firepower, mobility, and others) into a single system.
Recently, there has been significant discussion about the role of heavy weapons in ending ongoing wars and conflicts in various parts of the world. During the Russian-Ukrainian war, Kiev prioritized the purchase of heavy armaments, particularly main battle tanks, to counter Russian forces. As a result, Kiev put pressure on Western allies to obtain such weapons. But despite receiving many artillery and combat vehicles, obtaining main battle tanks remained controversial for quite some time due to reservations of some international powers, until Germany allowed its allies to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine in January 2023. Tanks have begun to pour noticeably into the theater of operations since then, with the UK agreeing to supply Ukraine with Challenger 2 tanks. The US has also pledged to supply 31 M1 Abrams tanks, with sources indicating that Ukraine is prepared to receive 10 units soon.
In an equivalent context, heavy weapon battles remained in another field of conflict. Sudan, with each party vying for control of the armored forces' headquarters in southern Khartoum, demonstrates the warring parties' belief in the continued use of heavy weaponry as an indicator of military power and the potential of their capacity to resolve the conflict.
However, given the operational challenges and complexities of using heavy weapons in battlefields and conflicts, this could sometimes be avoided, particularly by irregular armies, through utilizing modern weaponry technologies such as drones and others.
The key topic here is what motivates the need in heavy weapons in modern wars, and what their potential to resolve these conflicts is. This is the question that this analysis aims to answer.
Two Opposing Trends
The Russian-Ukrainian war, as well as other emerging or extended conflicts throughout the world, have raised concerns about the viability of heavy weapons and their role in present or future military operations. Strategic and military trends emerged in this context along two opposing pathways, as seen below:
1. A pivotal role for heavy weapons:
Heavy weaponry, particularly main battle tanks, are seen as essential military components for any government, according to supporters of this trend. This view is supported by a variety of considerations: tanks' historical symbolism and role in conventional warfare are among them. Since the first use of tanks in World War I in 1916, and their expansion in World War II, they have become a major weapon for countries all over the world. They’ve also become a symbol of military powers aspiring to achieve field decisiveness during wars, or possess tools of deterrence and strengthen ground forces. On the other hand, rising worldwide spending on battle tanks and heavy weapons suggests that they will continue to be essential tools for armies. Perhaps Russia's impulses to expand and accelerate tank production, as well as Ukraine's efforts to purchase them from the West, show both parties' belief in the importance of having this heavy equipment and its essential role in settling the ongoing war.
2. A decreasing role:
Supporters of this trend believe that heavy weapons play a smaller part in battles and that their use will be less prevalent than it was previously. The controversy erupted in Britain prior to the start of the Ukrainian war, as part of a review and evaluation of the country's military and security policy, with the goal of introducing radical modernizations to the armed services while decreasing expenditures. Military leaders advocated getting rid of British tanks because they were outdated and their usefulness in modern battles had reduced. Retired British Gen. Richard Barrons, the former commander of the U.K.’s Joint Forces Command said, “the future of warfare will be moving away from the use of the battlefield tank to focus on personnel using remotely controlled unmanned and autonomous equipment.” Despite the constraints imposed on this proposal at the time, particularly regarding Britain's NATO obligations, which may impede its implementation, its mere introduction may indicate a significant strategic and military level belief of the relative decline in the usefulness of tanks and heavy weapons.
Influencing Factors
There are criteria that can be used to determine if heavy weapons are useful and whether they can be relied on in current warfare. Some are tied to country military policy, while others are related to changes in strategic and military philosophy, as well as shifts in war or conflict patterns and tactics. This can be found by using the following formula:
1. Theater of military operations:
The limitations of depending on and deploying heavy weapons in battles are tied to the theater of operations and its topographical nature, as heavy weapons, particularly tanks, are best suited to confrontations that take place on flat terrain such as deserts or plains. Their effectiveness, on the other hand, decreases in the middle of mountains or forests. Tanks, for example, gain influence and effectiveness in open conflict fields because open theaters improve their capacity to move and maneuver and give more protection for ground troops engaging opponents. As a result, resorting to heavy weapons is dependent to geography and terrain variables, as demonstrated by the Ukrainian war. Rainfall and increasing snowfall during the winter period transformed the battleground from a flat, level area into a winding muddy area, causing military operations to be slowed for long periods, during which the warring parties were forced to use different tools before the lands were paved again for the movement of heavy equipment.
2. Pattern of conflict and nature of actors:
The changing nature of wars and conflicts suggests that the tools and tactics utilized in them are influenced by the types and nature of actors. Urban warfare or asymmetric warfare, for example, might put additional constraints on the usage or deployment of heavy weapons, particularly when fought between regular troops and militia groups. This is due to a variety of factors, including a lack of clarity in the lines of conflict and the fear of random civilian targeting. Since these wars do not occur on conventional battlefields, it is preferable to use light or specialized weapons rather than heavy equipment and weapons. Furthermore, such specific weapons do not require additional training or support to use effectively. This can be explained by the tendency of armed militias in regional conflicts, such as the Houthis in Yemen, to develop their qualitative capabilities by possessing drones and employing them to serve their military purposes, whether inside or outside the Yemeni arena.
3. Ability to overcome operational challenges:
In the case of heavy weapons being unable to deal with some of their operational and logistical challenges, the relative value of tanks and other heavy weapons falls in comparison to other current technology. The high cost of these weapons, whether in the process of purchasing, deploying, operating, or transporting them to the battlefield, poses a significant challenge, as do problems associated with the necessary maintenance and repairs, particularly if they malfunction during confrontations. Heavier equipment and weaponry require more manpower to operate, which collides with a recruitment crisis and the challenges faced by a number of armies throughout the world in drawing new members to their armed forces. This increases the burden on conscripts in service and puts strain on armies' operational capability in the case of a conflict or armed war.
As a result, the trends in armies appeared to be clearer toward integrating artificial intelligence technologies and using them in defense and attack, which may lead to types of unqualified tanks or heavy weapons that can be controlled remotely, similar to the growth in unmanned air and naval systems.
4. A military drone revolution:
According to military estimations, drones have contributed to a shift in military thinking and ways of warfare. Drones can impact the course of several wars and conflicts throughout the world, reserving a place in the military arsenal affecting future wars, beyond traditional heavy weaponry. Drones can also provide strategic and tactical advantages that conventional weapons do not, particularly in carrying out surveillance and reconnaissance missions, delivering supplies, providing support to ground forces, and precisely targeting enemy sites without endangering a soldier's life, all while ensuring that military objectives are met effectively.
The important role of drones in the Russian-Ukrainian war demonstrates that they have become a strategic alternative for war strategists, as their use rose dramatically on both sides of the conflict. This is evident in the strikes carried out by a Ukrainian suicide plane on August 29, when it successfully penetrated more than 370 kilometers into the Russian heartland, destroying two Russian heavy transport planes (IL-76) and damaging two additional planes. This also reflects the shift that drones can bring about in modern combat, as well as the level of destruction or damage that conventional weapons can do.
The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 2020, on the other hand, demonstrated the ability of drones to change the course of a war. Azerbaijan's possession of Turkish drones helped destroy many Armenian tanks, combat vehicles, and artillery units, removing them from the engagement equation, in addition to their ability in weakening Armenia's supply and logistics lines, which ultimately led to Azerbaijan's success in resolving this battle.
5. Combined arms maneuver:
Various weaponry were used in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Although artillery and tanks dominated field engagements at the start of this conflict due to factors relating to either party's inability to impose complete air control, the shifting environment of war forced both sides to deploy a variety of military instruments in their clashes. Cyber warfare, new technology, artificial intelligence-enhanced systems, and the threat of employing nuclear weapons have all become tools in this war. This suggests that the outcome of future conflicts will be mostly determined by the strategy of maneuvering with combined weaponry, which involves integrating diverse tools and weapons, whether old or modern. This seeks to confuse the opponent by integrating multiple weapons without being limited to one weapon or another, to generate mutually beneficial and successful consequences in battles or wars.
It remains difficult to confirm hypotheses supporting the omission of tanks or heavy weaponry from the equation of future combats. Even though tanks were first used in World War I 107 years ago, they are still a primary engine for the ground forces of armies all over the world. Tank preservation will remain a strategic goal, while considering the process of developing and modernizing tanks and heavy weapons, as well as providing them with components that maintain their presence and superiority, or do not eliminate their role in future conflicts, as part of the combined arms maneuver strategy.
