Contemporary battlefields have turned into ruthless proving grounds for the world’s most sophisticated tanks, with Russian and Western tanks confronting each other in wars that cover expanses from deserts to fields. Tanks such as Russia’s T-72 and T-90 have pitted themselves against American M1 Abrams and German Leopard 2s, and in these engagements, Russian tanks have again and again failed to match their counterparts. The stats don’t lie—Russian tanks are being knocked out at a faster clip than any other in recent history. And it’s not bad luck. It has to do with old design, new guns, and the evolving nature of combat.
Russian tank designs, based on Cold War logic, were engineered around speed, quantity, and aggressive action. Consider the T-72, which came out in the 1970s. It was designed to go quickly and strike hard, low to the ground and with an autoloader that allowed it to be crewed by only three men. But that autoloader had a price—it located the ammo under the turret, in the same compartment as the crew. The T-90, Russia’s more recent design that’s been worked hard, enhanced some aspects—improved optics, fire control, and active protection systems like Shtora-1—but retained that same dangerous ammo configuration. Essentially, the crew remains cohabiting with explosives.
Western tanks took a different direction. Designs like the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 were constructed with the survival of the crew as the number one concern. Their ammunition is kept in individual compartments with blowout panels, which means that when the tank is hit, the explosion is channeled away from the crew. Their armor is more sophisticated, too—some use depleted uranium blankets—and their optics and target systems are state of the art. That translates into a firefight where Western tanks can typically look and shoot ahead, even in bad weather or the dark.
The battlefield evidence is clear. In the Gulf War, U.S. Abrams tanks dominated Iraqi T-72s with ease, frequently destroying them before they could fire back. U.S. losses were negligible. Russia’s T-90, hailed initially for its ability to dodge older missiles in Syria, has fared abysmally when confronted with newer Western-produced anti-tank missiles. In Ukraine, that proved disastrous.
One of the most egregious design flaws is the Russian tanks’ ammunition storage. If a shell can penetrate the turret and strike the ammo carousel, it usually triggers a fatal chain reaction. The resulting explosion, dubbed the “jack-in-the-box” effect, can blast the turret off entirely and kill the entire crew in a moment. It’s occurred so frequently that it’s become a dark commonplace of Russian tank losses. In spite of efforts to rectify the situation, such as welding steel cages atop turrets to prevent missiles from hitting from the top, these measures haven’t been effective very much.
The weapons fired at them only become more intelligent. Javelins made by the U.S., for instance, are programmed to blast tanks from the top, where they have the thinnest armor. The Javelins, Carl Gustaf launchers, and even low-cost drones have been used by Ukrainian soldiers to amazing results.
In other instances, drones have dropped grenades directly into open hatches or engine compartments. Even lightly armed vehicles such as the M2 Bradley have reportedly taken out T-90s—something that would have been impossible on paper.
Production issues further compound the problem for Russia. While they are still able to produce tanks, production is limited—perhaps 90 T-90s annually. But losses have more than overwhelmed that. By mid-2022, more than 100 T-90s had been officially destroyed or captured, and overall Russian tank losses have risen into the thousands. And compared to during the Cold War, there aren’t huge caches of new tanks just lying around. Every one lost now is a heavy blow, and that’s being felt not just in battle, but on the international arms marketplace, where the T-90’s reputation is being bruised.
At the same time, Western armor has suffered its share of hits as well, but not nearly to the same extent. Some have been destroyed or captured, but by and large, their design has been much more survivable. Capacities such as armored ammo storage and robust crew areas have played a huge role in keeping tanks alive.
With tank warfare only becoming more advanced, survivability is becoming just as key as firepower. New designs such as the forthcoming M1A3 and the Franco-German MGCS are embracing this with modular armor, hybrid powerplants, and next-generation protection systems.
Russian losses in tanks speak louder. They are not mere instances of bad luck—they are evidence of a design ethos that no longer has a place on the modern battlefield. Placing mobility and mass above protection may have been sensible in decades past, but in the era of intelligent weapons, drones, and networked warfare, it’s a detriment. With conflicts still playing out worldwide, the remnants of Russian armor remain a hard-won lesson: in contemporary warfare, survival is just as important as delivering the strike.