Area APS shoots down an incom9ing missile in a test

Russian MoD

A new Russian “Active Protection System” for tanks which shoots down incoming FPVs has been used in action in Ukraine for the first time. The Arena-M Active Protection System (APS), which destroys drones with high-speed projectiles, was deployed on T-72 tanks in an assault near the village of Maiak in the Donetsk region.

The assault failed with heavy casualties, just like previous efforts. But some analysts are hailing the APS as a success and suggesting that it could signal the return of tanks and maneuver warfare to a battlefield which has become largely static and where vehicles are destroyed as soon as they are detected.

Did the Russian APS succeed or fail, and why are there such different interpretations of the same events?

Enter The Arena

The APS is an evolution of earlier reactive armor blocks, which explode in response to a hit, disrupting shaped charge warheads and preventing them from penetrating armor. After the Chechen war in the 1990s when Russian tanks were decimated by light anti-tank weapons, the Russians introduced the Arena Active Protection System to detect and intercept incoming projectiles.

The APS comprises three elements: an array of radar sensors on the outside of the tank, a computer control system, and launch tubes or silos for interceptor rounds. Arena automatically tracks incoming threats, specifically anything moving between 150-1500 mph. It filters out false targets including outgoing rounds and near misses which do not threaten the tank, as well as birds and small projectiles. When the threat approaches within 160 feet, the system launches an interceptor rocket.

A total of 26 interceptors are arranged with overlapping fields to provide 360-degree protection. The interceptor detonates close to the threat, detonating in a dense, directional spray of shrapnel. The original Arena did not provide 360-degree coverage but was followed by Arena-M giving protection from all angles including top-attack. The new version also fires two interceptors at a time to increase the chances of destroying the threat. In 2021, the makers claimed it was proof against all Western anti-tank missiles including Javelin.

Arena was not installed on Russian tanks, apparently due to cost. Israel pushed ahead with APS and the Trophy system, made by Rafael, is described as 'the World’s Only Operational Active Protection System.' Trophy is installed on a variety of IDF tanks and has been effective at stopping RPGs and guided missiles.

The makers upgraded Arena-M to detect small, slow-flying drones in 2024 and its appearance in Ukraine has been widely anticipated.

Arena In Action

“Unfortunately, it works,” concluded Dmytro Putiata writing on X describing the action at Maiak.

One of the Arena-M systems was seen shooting down 7 attacking FPVs in succession, and the vehicles fitted with APS were harder to destroy than regular tanks.

“In general it took from 15 to 20 FPV drones to destroy a tank,” writes Putiata.

While estimates vary considerably, a 2024 study by the German Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies (GIDS) estimated that it generally takes 3-6 FPVs to destroy a tank. “Michael” commander of the Ukrainian National Guard's Typhoon drone unit, told me that it usually takes “several” FPV hits, the first one or two to immobilize the vehicle and the rest to destroy it.

A 2025 study by the Swedish Defence Research Agency came up with an average number of 4-5 FPVs to destroy an armored vehicle, but noted that this could be much higher with unskilled operators and lower with skilled ones. On the optimistic side, in May 2026, Hryhoriy Shapoval, spokesperson for Ukraine's Operational Command East, stated that “two or three” FPVs are usually enough to destroy an armored vehicle.

Rob Lee, Senior Fellow at thinktank Foreign Policy Research Institute and writing on X, notes that the assault failed partly because it faced one of Ukraine’s toughest units. But he believes the first use of APS was a success.

“The Arena-M APS demonstrated effectiveness and will likely be improved,” writes Lee, adding later, “it could be a partial solution to employing armor again.”

Lee previously told Foreign Policy that it can take “ten or more” FPVs to kill a tank, but sees APS as a significant improvement in protection.

If this is accurate, it is a huge development. But there are reasons to be skeptical that tanks with APS are going to be thundering across the battlefield en masse.

Turtles, Porcupine And Other Monsters

FPVs represent a novel type of threat to tanks. Unlike traditional anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) such as Javelin, they are extremely affordable – more like $500 than the $200,000 of the Javelin – and are being made in vast numbers. Ukraine aims to supply 7 million drones this year, most of them FPVs. Further, the traditional counters to ATGMs, such as smoke screens, rapid maneuvering behind cover, and suppressing ATGM firing positions, simply do not work with FPVs,

FPVs rapidly became the biggest tank killers in Ukraine, and tank operators tried everything they could to counter them. “Cope cages,” frame structures welded to the top of tanks to deflect or block FPVs from hitting the vehicle became ever more elaborate. The ultimate development of this was huge “turtle tank” or “mobile barn” entirely covered by a metal shell in early 2024.

These vehicles, fitted with mine rollers, and carrying a mass of radio-frequency jammers, led armored assaults. The shells provided some protection, and it took more FPVs to destroy them, sometimes as many as 30. However, FPV operators learned how to tackle turtles, and at best it took a few more hits to stop them.

Later, in a second wave of development in late 2024 , bizarre new “porcupines” appeared covered in protruding metal spikes or wires to impale attacking drones. Again these led assaults and some initially proved difficult to kill, with one monster absorbing almost 60 FPV hits before succumbing.

Again though, after the initial shock, FPV operators worked out tactics and porcupines did not ultimately prove any more invulnerable than turtle tanks.

It is worth noting that on the Ukrainian side, any tank that gets within range is likely to be destroyed by FPVs. This includes even the best-armored U.S.-supplied M1 Abrams. The big difference is that while Russian tanks may detonate with the first penetrating hit, killing the crew instantly, Western tanks are far more survivable and can withstand multiple hits, giving the crew a chance to escape before the vehicle is destroyed. The Ukrainians have also added various cages and other constructions to their vehicles but nothing quite as extensive as turtle shells.

The Arena-M APS looks as though it has a similar effect to the field-improvised armor. It absorbs some FPV hits but does not provide invulnerability. In some cases at least it failed to function at all.

Active armor is limited by the number of interceptors it can fire; Arena has 26, apparently fired in pairs. Imagery indicates that one destroyed Russian vehicle had fired off all its interceptors protecting from one direction. As analyst Andrei_bt from military site BTVT notes on X: “the available ammunition load of the modernized Arena does not match modern realities, and increasing it is impossible for a number of reasons – if more ammunition is mounted, the engine compartment simply will not open.”

A Lesson From WWII

The arms race between tank armor and anti-tank weapons has been going on ever since tanks were fielded. The race became especially intense during WWII.

When Germany invaded France in 1940, the majority of its tanks were Panzer Is and Panzer IIs, protected by around half an inch of steel frontal armor, plus some Panzer IIIs and IVs with around an inch .

In four years of war, anti-tank guns escalated from the 20mm and 37mm weapons common in 1940 through 50mm, 75mm, up to the high-velocity 76.2-mm or 17-pounder, and tank protection was upgraded accordingly

By 1944,at the time of D-Day, allies were more likely to encounter the Panzer V Panther with over 3 inches of frontal armor or the Panzer VI Tiger with 4 inches or more. This could be bad news for U.S. tank crews in Sherman tanks armed with a 75mm gun unable to penetrate the Tiger’s frontal armor in combat conditions. THis type of weapon would annihilate one of the early German tanks, but no amount of shooting would break through the Tiger’s frontal armor. U.S. tankers learned to outflank Tigers and hit the thinner side armor. Or wait for “Firefly” Shermans with more powerful guns.

In WWII, successive incremental improvements in armor were countered by successive improvements in anti-tank weapons. In Ukraine though, the race has been one-sided. The FPVs are still the same warheads as they were four years ago, often repurposed RPG munitions. The drones have improved but there has been no pressure to improve anti-tank performance. Operators have always been able to throw in a few more drones to end the threat.

As with other developments, the first use when the other side does not know what to expect is the best opportunity. As with previous protective measures, operators may quickly find Arena-Ms vulnerabilities.

If APS ever does make tanks FPV-proof as WWII armor protected tanks from small-caliber guns, expect FPV developers to adapt quickly. There are several obvious, low-cost ways of beating APS, from decoys to radar jamming to stealth. One thing we know about FPVs is that they can evolve fast into new forms such as fiber drones, amphibious FPVs and others. Unlike APS, they can be developed and fielded in weeks without a huge R&D budget.

It took many years to develop Arena-M, and another four years to bring the “drone resistant” version to the battlefield. The cost of Arena-M is not known, but the comparable Trophy system costs in the region of $0.5 – $1m to outfit a vehicle. That is a lot to stop a few thousand dollars’ worth of extra FPVs.

Meanwhile, new systems mean one operator can control a carousel of attack drones, calling FPVs down in quick succession rather than just operating one drone at a time. Systems like Ukraine’s Pasika and Swarmer are already in use, and the U.S-developed Nemyx may debut in Ukraine soon. The chances of overwhelming defenses with more tanks than they can handle may have disappeared forever in a year or two.

So far, we have only seen Round 1 of the contest between FPVs and Active Protection Systems. The Russians may learn lessons and upgrade their systems as a result and they may do better. Alternatively, APS, which to enthusiasts might have looked like the last best hope for the tank, may be headed for military museums for a place next to the turtles and porcupines.