There is usually a technological or operational pretext for such arguments. The latest justification for the MBT’s imminent demise seems to be because the Russian Army has lost such large numbers of them in the ongoing Ukraine conflict. So why, in my view, will these admittedly very expensive platforms remain relevant in future conflicts?

This special IDEX 2025 Shephard Views Newsletter is presented in partnership with Otokar

Compared to other armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), tanks are by far the best protected platforms on the battlefield. Russia’s losses are undoubtedly high, but take a look at the bigger picture – its casualty rates for lighter AFVs such as infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and armoured personnel carriers (APCs) are well over double that of MBTs. Many seem to forget that in a full-scale and protracted land war you’re going to lose a lot of everything.

But protection levels are only high if they can cope with the threat you actually encounter, rather than the one you planned for! Traditionally, AFVs are heavily protected over their frontal arc, as this is where enemy fire tends to hit in traditional manoeuvre warfare.

Explore armored vehicles and turret systems of Otokar, the global land systems manufacturer.

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (which I still find hard to view as historical, but I suppose they now are!) showed that an attack could come from anywhere across a full 360 degrees, with mines and improvised explosive devices (IED) posing a major threat, especially to lighter vehicles.

One solution was to increase armour protection (which inevitably adds weight and reduces manoeuvrability) but this is not always enough, so many platforms sported new electronic devices to try and neutralise the more advanced IEDs.

Above: A Merkava MBT of the IDF fitted with Rafael's Trophy active protection system, with its distinctive radars and effectors on either side of the turret. (Photo: Rafael)

The fighting in Ukraine has famously seen the emergence of yet another type of threat, the top attack weapon. These can take the shape of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs), anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) or even bespoke artillery rounds such as the German SMArt or Franco-Swedish Bonus. Both the latter contain two explosively formed penetrator (EFP) munitions which are ejected over the target and slowed by parachute.

All this danger raining down from above has led to increasing numbers of MBTs on both sides being fitted with various types of overhead protection (some sophisticated, some decidedly agricultural) in an effort to increase their survivability against the top attack.

In addition, MBTs have been fitted with camouflage to help conceal them and will move from one ‘hide’ to another where possible. Tanks are not noted for the stealthiness (as anyone who has anywhere been near one will attest) and no amount of camo will cover the tracks they leave in mud or snow (or the noise they make) but every little helps.

Looking outside Ukraine for a moment, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are using large numbers of their Merkava MBTs during operations in Gaza. Some of these have been observed with top attack protection, showing the ubiquity of the threat regardless of the conflict environment.

These Merkava are also fitted with the Rafael Trophy hard-kill active protection system (APS) which has proved to be highly effective against ATGMs and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). Israel is also fitting the Elbit Iron Fist APS to some of its other platforms. And where the IDF leads, others follow, even if some would rather not admit it!

It turns out Russia may not be among these followers. It has continuously developed explosive-reactive armour (ERA) for its MBTs, with first generation systems designed to neutralise ATGMs with a single high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead.

More recent Russian ERA is designed not only to neutralise weapons with a HEAT warhead, which have a relatively low speed, but also tank-fired projectiles such as armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds.

Russia has developed a number of APS suites including several generations of the Arena, but so far these do not appear to have been fielded. Many Russian MBTs are only fitted with the Shtora system which is designed to counter wire-guided ATGMs, not the latest generation fire-and-forget type. Lack of these systems may go some way to explaining the heavy losses – as ever the countermeasure must be for the right threat!

Ukraine has also developed several generations of ERA as well as some APS, but again none of the latter are known to have been deployed. Perhaps crews on both sides are reluctant to rely on these systems and prefer other methods?

Regardless, fielding the latest defensive technology is one way to protect your expensive assets, but using them for the right mission is also important. And sometimes equipment can be highly effective in a role it wasn’t designed for – all it takes is for someone to be bold (or foolhardy or even desperate) enough to try it!

While the main function of the MBT has always been to engage other tanks on the battlefield, in recent conflicts they have proven highly effective in counter-insurgency (COIN) operations where they have provided direct fire support to dismounted infantry.

Those writing off the tank tend to forget how versatile it is. The 125mm ammunition sets carried in Russian MBTs such as the T-72 has always included high-explosive fragmentation (HE-FRAG) rounds as well as laser-guided projectiles to enable targets to be engaged beyond the range of the main armament.

Of course, to be able to field a tank fleet requires a factory to build it in the first place. One of my worries about the future of the MBT is the dwindling number of options for countries looking to buy some!

As I’m writing this on the occasion of IDEX 2025, a look at countries in the MENA region is relevant here (not least because it is a market (Merkava aside) reliant on tank imports and with money to spend). Nations in the region have in the past procured new tanks from a wide range of sources, often for political reasons, including France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, the UK and the US.

Above: Further development of the Russian T-72 MBT resulted in the T-90 which in this iteration has the latest available explosive-reactive armour and the Shtora soft-kill protection system. (Photo: author) 

Many of those production lines no longer exist and spare parts and ammunition for some tanks currently deployed in the region will be difficult to obtain as they have been out of production for many years and in some cases key sub-contractors are no longer in business.

Inevitably, geopolitics plays a role here as well. Russia was one of the larger MBT suppliers to MENA nations, with the T-72 manufactured by UralVagonZavod in Nizhny Tagil which is (or at least was) the largest tank production facility in Russia, if not the world.

Back in 1985 this facility produced some 1,559 T-72s for home and export. This one-time best-seller was followed by the T-90, which was exported to countries including Algeria and Egypt, but the war in Ukraine means that all production is now destined for the Russian Army, leaving export customers out in the cold. So even for those countries still prepared to buy Russian that source is effectively closed off.

Russia’s latest T-14 Armata MBT, first shown some ten years ago, has yet to be produced in significant numbers and those available have not been deployed against Ukraine. No export customers have emerged either. Whether Russia does not want to risk the type in combat, or is afraid it may not live up to its specifications and prove an embarrassment remains to be seen.

Souring international relations and the need to make good equipment losses suffered in battle mean Russia’s days as a major defence exporter look well and truly over. According to the latest United Nations Arms Transfer List, covering activity in 2023, the Russians only exported equipment to Belarus. This consisted of two Iskander-M tactical ballistic missiles and four Mi-35M attack helicopters plus 29 BTR-82A and three BTR-80K 8x8 APCs. Given the close alignment between Moscow and Minsk, a cynic might even say this transfer into a highly captive market isn’t really a proper export anyway…

So much for Russia. What about the rest of the world’s tank suppliers? France (KNDS/ Leclerc) and the UK (RBSL/Challenger 2) no longer have the capability to produce an MBT from the ground up, so refurbishment and upgrades are the only options.

Installing a brand-new turret can seriously enhance a tank’s capabilities and that is what RBSL is doing with the 146 Challenger 2s for the British Army which are being upgraded to Challenger 3 configuration.

This has some modifications to the chassis but the main focus is on the turret, featuring a Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 smoothbore gun coupled to a computerised fire control system (FCS) with stabilised sight for gunner and commander. Challenger 3 also features the latest-generation armour and will be fitted with the Israeli Trophy hard-kill APS.

Whilst I don’t want to turn this into another diatribe on British Army capability it should be pointed out that in order to upgrade tanks you need to have an in-service fleet available in the first place and even the most robust design cannot be eternally upgraded. And even if you’re not fighting a war there will be attrition from training and other accidents. I suspect when these Challengers finally reach end of extended life their ultimate replacement will be from a foreign production line, but that prospect is decades away.

RBSL is also offering this turret as an upgrade to other MBT designs. The only other customer for the Challenger 2 was Oman which took delivery of just 38 optimised for desert operations.

While many countries in the Middle East want the best-selling KNDS-Germany Leopard 2, the only customer able to acquire it so far is Qatar which took delivery of 62 of the 2A7 variant ordered in 2013, plus a complete package of other equipment including PzH 2000 155mm artillery systems plus Dingo and Fennek 4x4s.

As was the case with the Leclercs sold to the UAE, these Leopard 2A7s were modified for operation in high ambient temperatures and when delivered were even higher spec than Leopard 2s deployed by the German Army. These had an MTU power pack, auxiliary power unit, improved FCS and remote weapon station armed with a 12.7mm machine gun (MG).

As a Leopard upgrade option, Rheinmetall is also offering the turret fitted to the KF-51 Panther MBT which was revealed in 2022, armed with a new 130mm gun or the current 120mm smoothbore fed by an automatic loader and coupled to an advanced FCS with stabilised day/night sights offering the commander a hunter/killer capability.

Germany’s effective monopoly on new tank export sales in Europe could soon come under threat though. In just a few years Turkey has become self-sufficient in many key areas of defence equipment, including tracked and wheeled AFVs, with significant exports being made.

Turkey has the largest army in NATO (after the US) and local company Otokar developed the Altay MBT to start replacing some of its older tanks such as upgraded M60s and Leopard 1s, both armed with a 105mm rifled gun.

After some doubtless highly political wrangling the production contract for the Altay was awarded to BMC, which at that time only had experience in building trucks and light wheeled APCs.

Above: The Leclerc MBT deployed by the UAE has a number of improvements compared to those operated by the French Army including a new MTU power pack, an APU and improved FCS. This one has a new commander's panoramic sight fitted. (Photo: author)

In the future it is likely that Turkey will offer the Altay on the export market. It is armed with a 120mm smoothbore gun that in addition to conventional ammunition can fire a laser-guided projectile developed by Roketsan, and is also fitted with an Aselsan APS, making it a competitive prospect in terms of offence and defence. The Leopard clearly needs to watch its back, especially on Turkey’s MENA ‘home turf’!

Last but not least, the US has chalked up major sales of the General Dynamics Land Systems M1 Abrams series MBT to Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

Most recently, late in 2024 the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to Egypt for M1A1 refurbishment, support and equipment at an estimated cost of $4.69 billion. This will cover the upgrade of 555 Abrams to M1A1SA (‘Situational Awareness’) configuration.

The current run of announcements from the Oval Office over Gaza, tariffs and other matters could also remove this source of production for many nations, or conversely make it the only option depending, on what kind of pressure is applied to whom!

This caveat (and concern) about actually getting hold of tanks aside, and returning to my original point, while the death of the MBT has been forecast time again, it remains a key part of the combined arms team which includes infantry, artillery, combat engineers, attack helicopters and reconnaissance systems plus other elements. Everything is networked these days and the tank is no exception.

History shows that when MBTs are not around, infantry casualties soon increase. In addition, the majority of tanks deployed today have a good basic design which has enabled them to be upgraded as the threat changes and new technology is developed to extend their operational lives and improve their survivability. But if losses deplete reserves and new production cannot keep pace (or does not exist) then there is clearly a problem.

To conclude, what will the MBT be replaced by? I for one can’t think of anything that wouldn’t just be a tank by another name.