The Role and Limitations of Active Protection Systems in Tank Warfare
In recent years, Active Protection Systems (APS) have become a critical component in modern tank designs, significantly enhancing survivability against anti-tank weaponry. However, while APS such as the Arena and Trophy play a crucial defensive role, they do not make tanks invulnerable to AT weapons. This article explores how APS work, their benefits, limitations, and the unintended consequences they can bring to modern warfare.
How APS Work
Detection and Tracking: APS employs advanced sensors to detect incoming threats, such as anti-tank missiles or projectiles. These sensors provide real-time data about the incoming missiles or projectiles, enabling the APS to respond quickly and efficiently.
Interception: Once a threat is identified, the APS can deploy countermeasures to intercept and neutralize the incoming threat. These countermeasures typically include explosive projectiles or other mechanisms designed to disrupt or destroy the incoming weapon before it can hit the tank.
Benefits of APS
Increased Survivability: APS can intercept a significant percentage of incoming threats, thereby reducing the likelihood of a successful hit. This greatly enhances the tank's survivability in battle.
Deterrence: The presence of an APS may deter some adversaries from using certain types of munitions or tactics. Knowing that their attacks might be intercepted could discourage adversaries from launching certain types of assaults.
Limitations of APS
Not Infallible: APS systems have inherent limitations in terms of range, reaction time, and the types of threats they can counteract. There remains a possibility that some advanced anti-tank weapons could evade detection, making APS less effective in certain scenarios.
Countermeasures: Adversaries can develop tactics and weapons specifically designed to defeat APS, such as multiple simultaneous attacks or stealthy munitions. These countermeasures can render APS less effective in certain combat situations.
Collateral Damage: The interception of threats can cause collateral damage to nearby friendly forces or civilians, especially if the countermeasures used involve explosives. This can make the battlefield a more dangerous place for infantry and support units.
Additional Considerations
Increase in Safety Hazards: The use of APS often forces friendly infantry to maintain greater separation from their tanks. This is to avoid being hit by the countermeasures fired by the APS, which can be quite destructive. As a result, combined arms tactics involving infantry and armor cooperation may need to be re-evaluated and adjusted.
Adversarial Strategies: An intelligent adversary could decide to avoid engaging the tanks directly and instead target the infantry that has been separated from their protective armor. This strategy could include ambushes during vulnerable situations such as refueling or ammunition loading. The adversary might use indirect fire, such as artillery or mortars, to achieve this.
Increased Detection Risks: For APS systems like the Trophy, constant broadcasting of radar signals for detection purposes can make Trophy-equipped vehicles more detectable. Even in low visibility conditions or at night, adversaries equipped with electronic surveillance measures (ESM) can track the exact location of Trophy-equipped units. This could lead to the adversary either evading the oncoming armor or redeploying to better ambush positions.
Tactical Deception: Adversaries can use tactical deception to manipulate the actions of APS-equipped armor. By using diversionary fire, they might draw the APS in one direction while the real target maneuvers in a different direction. This could cause premature depletion of ammunition and increased stress and confusion among armor crews.
Conclusion
While APS like Arena and Trophy offer significant advantages in protecting armored vehicles, they do not make tanks invulnerable. Tanks still require complementary defensive measures, such as armor, tactical positioning, and situational awareness, to effectively mitigate threats from AT weaponry. The use of APS has introduced new challenges and risks, necessitating a reassessment of combined arms tactics and battlefield strategies.
It is crucial to be aware of these potential consequences and to approach the deployment of APS with a clear understanding of their limitations. What sounds too good to be true often is, and careful consideration of the broader strategic implications is necessary.