Modern battlefields are ruthlessly harsh proving grounds for armored vehicles, where Western and Russian tanks meet each other in deserts, forests, and urban landscapes. Russian tanks like the T-72 and T-90 have always come up against their Western counterparts in the form of the American M1 Abrams and German Leopard 2. Russian tank after Russian tank is being destroyed en masse. These losses were not haphazard—years of design choice combined with the realities of modern combat have unveiled vulnerabilities all too evident.
Russian tank design sprang from the needs of the Cold War, where speed, numbers, and offense were paramount. Take the T-72, which debuted in the 1970s: compact, agile, and with an autoloader that reduced the crew to three. But at the cost, it sacrificed armor, keeping ammunition inside the turret in proximity to the crew.
Even the newer T-90, with improved optics, fire control, and active protection systems like Shtora-1, kept this same dangerous layout. Essentially, the crew sits alongside the explosives—a perilous trade-off in today’s high-intensity combat.
Western designs were different. Tanks such as the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams focus on crew survival, with ammunition stored in separate compartments that have blowout panels. Armor is also more advanced—occasionally even in the guise of depleted uranium layers—and the most advanced optics allow crews to detect and engage targets under nearly any conditions. The upshot is a tank that can absorb a hit and keep going, allowing Western crews to have a strong advantage in both protection and firepower.
History has always confirmed this superiority. In the Gulf War, U.S. Abrams tanks easily overwhelmed Iraqi T-72s, often destroying them even before they had time to respond, while themselves suffering relatively few losses. Russian T-90s once dodged older missiles in Syria, but have struggled with modern, advanced anti-tank weapons. In Ukraine, this vulnerability has been revealed.
One such blatant weakness among the weakest of features is ammunition storage. When a shell enters the turret and explodes against the ammo carousel, it usually results in a catastrophic explosion that propels the turret into the air and instantly kills the entire crew—an effect popularly known as the “jack-in-the-box.” Measures to correct the problem, such as welding steel cages above turrets, are ineffective.
At the same time, top-attack munitions designed to strike top armor, like U.S. Javelins, Carl Gustaf recoilless launchers, and even low-cost drones, all exploit this weakness with lethal effectiveness.
Drones have been used to launch grenades down open hatches or engine compartments, and lightly armored vehicles such as M2 Bradleys have reportedly knocked out T-90s—things which were impossible in theory a few years ago. Production inefficiencies make the problem worse. While Russia continues to manufacture T-90s, production is limited to around 90 per year, far less than the losses sustained.
As of mid-2022, over 100 T-90s had been destroyed or captured, Russian tank losses as a whole running into the thousands. As opposed to the Cold War era, there are no stocks held in reserve to fall back upon, so every loss represents a harsh strategic and financial setback.
Western tanks have also been threatened, but lost significantly fewer. Amored ammo compartments, protected crew spaces, and sophisticated fire-control systems preserve life and enable machines to remain operational in battle. Future designs like the M1A3 and the Franco-German MGCS further emphasize survivability with modular armor, hybrid power, and next-generation protection.
Russian tank losses are not dumb luck; they are the product of a design philosophy unchanged since the Cold War. Mobility and mass were good reasons during the Cold War era, but the modern battlefield demands protection as much as guns. The message is clear: in modern warfare, survival is as much a priority as the ability to strike first.