A lesson for Kim Jong-un: tank

warfare is changing fast

By STEPHEN BRYEN FEBRUARY 2, 2018 10:22 AM (UTC+8)

The modern battlefield is rapidly changing and old assumptions about the use of tanks
and other armor are in doubt. This means that some adversaries who lack the latest up-to-
date systems may find themselves in big trouble. Especially North Korea.

In 1975, on the last leg of a Middle East trip, I visited the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. One
of the defense attachés there told me Israel was well along on developing its own battle
tank, but that the embassy didn’t know much about it. Early the next morning I met with
Israel’s Defense Minister, Shimon Peres.

He made the error of asking what he could do for me. I responded by saying I wanted to
see the new tank. Surprisingly, he immediately agreed and later that morning I was
bundled off to the Israel tank center at Tel HaShomer in south Tel Aviv, near Ramat
Gan.  There I got a stiff lecture on security meted out by an unhappy colonel.  But after
the lecture, I met up with General Israel Tal (1924-2010), known by his nickname Talik.
He was probably the world’s leading tank expert and he had set out on a mission to
improve Israeli tanks in light of the beating they took in the 1973 war. Himself a very-
left-leaning Labor party member, when it came to the security of his troops he was quite
ferocious. And he was a great expert on tank warfare and an admirer of Rommel.
Tal took me in hand and explained the multiple tragedies of 1973, including the heavy
losses of tanks – especially American M-60 Patton tanks, which suffered the biggest
losses against a new generation of Russian anti-tank weapons, including the Sagger, that
had shown up on the battlefield. Unlike the British Centurion tanks, which were able to
survive hits, the M60s were not so lucky.
Some think armor warfare is a thing of the past – but take a look at China, or North
Korea, or Russia, or the United States, and you get a different impression. North Korea in
particular has a very heavy armored force, if not the newest one.
The United States armor force is also aging, with America’s main battle tank being
the M-1 Abrams. The Abrams has plenty of advantages: very strong composite armor and
a big, German-origin Rheinmetall 120mm gun, plus the latest electronics. But as ISIS has
demonstrated, Abrams tanks can still be destroyed.

The Indian Army has Russian-made T-90 tanks. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The Abrams was the first big improvement in American tanks: it offered a much better
fighting silhouette, a super-powerful turbine engine (although it’s also a gas guzzler), an
excellent suspension and other significant upgrades over previous models. But the
Abrams tank has seldom been used in high intensity combat against a professional
military, still leaving questions about its performance either against foreign tanks such
as Russia’s T-90 or emerging Armata, or against the latest generation of Russian anti-
tank weapons, including the Kornet (the 9M133). The improved version of the Kornet
model EM is claimed to be able to defeat reactive armor added to tanks for additional
protection.
Hezbollah, operating in Lebanon in 2006, claimed to have destroyed four Merkava
tanks and hit others. This led Israel to put active protection systems on some of its tanks
using an Israeli-designed solution called Trophy. In 2014, in fighting in Gaza, Israeli
tanks with equipped with Trophy intercepted 15 anti-tank missiles fired at them,
destroying all of them. Most were Kornets. Trophy also directed the tank guns to be able
to locate and destroy a number of the launchers.
Russian has developed three different active protection systems, although one of them
(Drozd) is obsolete. One called Arena is designed to counter rocket-propelled grenades
(RPGs) and anti-tank missiles. Manufactured by the Kolomna Machine Building Design
Bureau (KB Mashinostroyenia, or KBM) near Moscow, the Arena-E has been exported to
South Korea and is being used on South Korea’s K2 tanks. (The South Koreans also say
they have developed their own active protection system.)
The most advanced active protection system produced by Russia is known as
the Afghanit, also produced by KBM. What makes it special is that it is supposed to be
capable of defeating projectiles with depleted uranium cores. The Russians see the
Afghanit as an answer to US “DU” (depleted uranium) tank shells. While DU is
controversial, because of its latent radioactivity and potential long-term health effects,
the US continues to use it, including in Syria. The Russians also have DU, so both sides
are fully cognizant of the risks but want DU because it is the best armor penetrator
available, far ahead of tungsten carbide, the nearest competitor.
The US does not currently have an active protection on its Abrams tanks and armored
vehicles (namely the Stryker combat vehicle and the Bradley fighting vehicle). There has
been some considerable controversy as to why not. The US Army stubbornly pursued its
own active defense system in a project that stretched for some twenty years.  However
the system never was qualified.
Cheap anti-tank weapons could turn Kim’s tanks on the battlefield into
nothing more than junkyard wrecks
Recently the Army decided to buy some off the shelf systems from three suppliers, two of
them Israeli. These included the Trophy, made by Rafael, Iron First from IMI and Artis’s
(Virginia-based) Iron Curtain. Of these, Trophy is being installed on a tank brigade and is
being deployed in Europe. The first 100 units are under delivery. The Artis system has
run into technical problems and may or may not end up being fully tested.
The decision to upgrade the Abrams, plus the Bradley and Stryker, comes from recent
experience in Iraq and Syria. ISIS has released footage of an Abrams tank being hit and
destroyed, and this was not the only Abrams destroyed. Clearly Russian improvements in
anti-tank systems, as evidenced by Kornet, demonstrate the challenge facing armor
systems.

It would make a lot of sense to get active protection on US tanks in South Korea, sooner
rather than later.  The US Army has not impressed anyone by its lethargy in modernizing
tanks and fighting vehicles.

If proof is needed, look what happened to the Leopard II, a greatly admired tank. The
Turkish Army, in its attacks on the Kurds in Iraq and Syria, has been experiencing
significant tank losses against a poorly equipped adversary. In particular, Leopard II
tanks from Germany –often well thought-of as superbly designed tanks – have been
blown up by the underequipped Kurds, who do not have any armor of their own.  The
two losers are the Turks, because the Leopard is performing far below the standard
expected of it, and the Germans, because their tank is not so great and the promise they
allegedly extracted from the Turks not to use the Leopard against the Kurds isn’t worth
the paper it was written on.
The Leopard II, like the Abrams, does not have active protection.

In regard to Korea, where a clash of armor could be most likely, Kim Jong-un is at a big
disadvantage as he lacks upgraded systems and has no active protection capability. Cheap
anti-tank weapons could turn his tanks on the battlefield into nothing more than junkyard
wrecks.

Stephen Bryen

Dr Stephen Bryen has 40 years of leadership in government and industry. He has served as a senior staff director of
the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as the deputy under secretary of defense for trade security policy, as
the founder and first director of the Defense Technology Security Administration, as the president of Delta Tech Inc,
as the president of Finmeccanica North America, and as a commissioner of the US China Security Review
Commission.

12 Comments
Sort by 
Oldest

Jody Swearingen
Isn't the Korea peninsula not conductive to tank warfare as it was during Desert Storm 1 and 2.
Wouldn't they be regulated to infantry support?
Like · Reply · 3 · Feb 1, 2018 8:13pm

Luca Taramelli
From DU, depleted uranium, to DUS, depleted united states, to dust
Like · Reply · 6 · Feb 2, 2018 12:59am

Roger Helbig · 
Penn Yan Academy
Presume you do not know that you and everyone else here already ingests, drinks in or breathes in
a fraction of a microgram of Uranium-238 (aka DU) every single day of their life - not only that, but
every human being who has ever trod this Earth has done so and all who follow us will as well
Like · Reply · 2 · Feb 3, 2018 6:05am

Alun Thomas · 
Stratford, New Zealand
Way to miss the point...
Like · Reply · Feb 3, 2018 10:36pm

Che Serna
The problems with Byren comments are he is geographically challenged. 
He writes: "In regard to Korea, where a clash of armour could be most likely".
Reply: Bullsh*t & here is WHY!
1. In the first Korean War the South had little or no armour & NKorea who was provoked into
entering the south had limited armour. NO Tank battles occurred
2. Later on in the ever changing battlefield US tanks were brought in. 
But there were NO large & few tank battles of the Korean War. WHY?
3. The mountainous, heavily forested terrain prevented large masses of tanks from maneuvering, in
other words; the terrain o...See More
Like · Reply · 11 · Feb 2, 2018 6:41am · Edited

Luca Taramelli
Well Che Serna yes, this Bryen surely has dementia, but a "moderate and humanitarian" one, like
ISIS ( same DNA ).
If a Russian or Chinese or Eskimo had written like Bryen that "The US Army stubbornly pursued its
own active defense system in a project that stretched for some twenty years. However the system
never was qualified."... the writer would have been qualified as unqualified, and of spreading
conspiracy fake news... Well, I guess that when Bryen writes, he is wearing a white helmet from
Aleppo and yellow/blue underpants from Odessa
Like · Reply · 3 · Feb 2, 2018 10:09am

Robert Ferrin
Tank warfare in the Korea's especially North Korea is a no-go as I'm well aware that the auther of
this junk artical is well aware of too simply due to the terraine we found that out in 50's,well unless
they have a flying tank that is...
Like · Reply · 3 · Feb 2, 2018 10:48am

Jn Githinji · 
Nairobi Hill, Nairobi Area, Kenya
Tell that to Kim! Ask him why he continues to amass armor which he couldn't use in the first place.
Like · Reply · 23 hrs

Michael Chan
This author gets it all wrong. The next war between USA and Korea will be fought in USA, not in
Korea.
Like · Reply · 7 · Feb 2, 2018 10:53am

Moses 'Maximilian' Ogharandukun · 

Abuja, Nigeria
amen my good friend, amen to that
Like · Reply · Feb 3, 2018 12:06am

Gus Vongsavath
Just dream on...
Like · Reply · 1 · Feb 3, 2018 6:50pm

Stanis Bai
Michael Chan how will NK fight US in USA?? Can you explain? Where is NK's massive Navy boats n
planes??? Another dreamer. Get real guys.
Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs
Show 2 more replies in this thread

Edgardo Fernando
It is a mess created by these anti people war lords. 
Weapons are made to kill disguise as to protect! 
HOW MANY TIMES WILL. A CANON......... BEFORE IT.... BE BANNED! 
MASS MURDERERS!
Like · Reply · 1 · Feb 2, 2018 1:45pm

Rafa Said · 
ITM 78 - 82
Don't take people for granted. Mr. Kim Jong is smarter than Trump. As it is now, his adversaries are
spending billions of dollars for nothing. Americans are paying taxes through their noses and their
government are happily feeding their fat weapons manufacturers!!
Like · Reply · 2 · Feb 2, 2018 4:55pm

William Crain · 
Stone Carver at Self-Employed
Can't wait to see Israhell vaporized and that heinous illegal bunch of paid squatters, Terrorists and
PARASITES are shoved into the dustbin of history. Their military is build/made with massive US
taxpayer funds ~ soon we'll not have to give them a dime as they will be dust.
Like · Reply · 1 · Feb 2, 2018 8:18pm

Jn Githinji · 
Nairobi Hill, Nairobi Area, Kenya
Don't hold your breath waiting... 
"Israelhell" as you call it isn't going anywhere now, or ever. They've a fully indigenous military
industry that develops and manufactures some of the most sophisticated weapons ever. And they
are the only ones who sell to America! Israel doesn't play in the same league as those camel
herders.
Like · Reply · 23 hrs

Avinash Mehta · 
S.S. Jain Subodh P.G. College jaipur
You require Crude Wood Man and Machines and certainly North Korea is lagging behind in
alaspects of morden warfare.
Like · Reply · Feb 3, 2018 9:45am

Kin Lun Wong · 

Duke University
More wishful thinking gone mad. Good luck to S Koreans if they outsource the decision making
Like · Reply · Feb 3, 2018 12:09pm

Stephen Bryen
On Saturday, February 3 the Kurds destroyed another tank, almost certainly a Leopard II, Five crew
members in the tank were killed.
Like · Reply · Feb 4, 2018 5:20am

Les Greenhill
why the freaking hell is this posted into my fb page as a sponsored add? sponsored by what war
mongerer? sheesh, it's like saying get em while the getting's good. fb people can you stop it please.
if you gotta sponsor something try peace instead. no really just try it.
Like · Reply · 12 hrs
Facebook Comments Plugin