For steel beasts, the most dangerous habitat is urban. Tall buildings and narrow city streets are unfriendly territory for a 12-foot-wide tank that weighs 70 tons. Yet, as the world becomes increasingly urbanized, and combat in cities and villages has become the norm, armor will have to prepare for more combat in built-up areas. If the terrain can’t be changed, then how about changing the tank itself? Is it time for the U.S. Army to develop a specialized tank for urban warfare?
“A tank designed for urban terrain would have radically different design requirements than a main battle tank designed for open warfare,” wrote Michael McCabe in a June article for Armor Magazine. Main battle tanks, which rely on long-range firepower and speed, “are willing to sacrifice extra armor to retain mobility,” McCabe emphasized. However, “In urban combat, the reverse is true: fights are at much closer ranges, mobility is measured by the ability to navigate sharp turns and tight/narrow streets, and speed can be sacrificed to retain maximum armor protection.”
In addition, urban terrain imposes unique demands on tanks, such as the ability to shoot around corners and engage targets at high elevations. Historical examples include Germany’s modifications during World War II, where a 150mm howitzer was mounted on a Panzer IV medium tank chassis to create the Brumbar, while the Sturmtiger featured a Tiger heavy tank outfitted with a 380mm rocket mortar. Both designs, however, faced disadvantages due to the lack of a rotating turret.
Douglas Nash, a retired Army colonel and historian, noted that the Germans believed tanks were superior for military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) and that creating armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) specifically for that purpose was a waste of resources. More recently, during the Ukraine war, Russia has deployed the BMPT Terminator, based on a T-72 tank chassis, armed with multiple anti-tank missiles, autocannons, and grenade launchers.
McCabe envisions a tank built from scratch specifically for urban warfare, emphasizing the need for heavy armor and designs, such as a V- or octagon-shaped hull to minimize mine damage and maximize shot deflection. The vehicle’s powerplant would be akin to that of a bulldozer, prioritizing power over speed.
The urban tank would be heavily armed, capable of firing in multiple directions thanks to its main turret and side turrets or sponsons. McCabe suggests incorporating short-barreled guns that could traverse narrow streets easily, and even a flamethrower for added protection against attackers hiding in concealed positions.
Ultimately, he proposes a vehicle that resembles a “land battleship,” reminiscent of early 20th-century tanks like the Soviet T-35 from the 1920s. McCabe suggests that modern technology, such as remote-controlled weapons stations and unmanned turrets, could overcome the design limitations seen in older multi-turret tanks.
Furthermore, the proposed urban tank would need numerous escape hatches for crew safety during emergencies, as limiting exits to the top hatches increases risks. Although tank designers may be hesitant about the challenges of balancing firepower, protection, and mobility, Nash believes existing tanks, like the Abrams, could be modified for urban combat by equipping them with demolition guns and bulldozer plows.
Regardless of the approach taken, McCabe argues that the evolution of urban tanks is a matter of necessity. “Urban combat without the presence of armored vehicles is extremely hazardous to the infantryman,” he states. “The side which develops a purpose-built tank for urban combat will enjoy a marked advantage over one that continues to use main battle tanks.”
