A number of counterattacks by the Ukrainians, in some cases using reserve forces, have taken place along the line of contact. While reports are not yet
its hilarious to me how effective drones have been, seemingly just because no one has bothered to put a gun on a tank that can aim up high enough to shoot drones. a little bit of thermal or LIDAR imaging systems and a 20mm autocannon with laser rangefinding and airburst AA shells should do the trick relatively easily, and we’ve been making autocannons for anti-air purposes since ww2 at least. I shouldnt be surprised because america can’t even replace the M2 browning .50 cal machine gun from ww2, or build their own modern SPG artillery tank, despite numerous attempts. another L for the ‘capitalism brings innovation’ crowd lol.
The problem I think isn’t really that the tank is vulnerable to drones, but that you will never really make infantry not vulnerable to drones. Infantry protects the tanks from conventional AT methods, but if you use the drone to kill the infantry then a tank relatively is pretty much dead. Also I think they are going to replace the m2.
AFAIK infantry are usually much more resilient to artillery or aerial bombardment than tanks, since infantry can weasel into holes and micro-terrain features to use as cover, and could use certain materials to camouflage thermal signatures easier than tanks - worst case scenario they can dig tunnels, which tanks cannot (yet, most of the time). ground drones or drones that fly closer to the ground could find infantry easier perhaps but would have a harder time navigating more complicated terrain than the open sky.
Drones have also limited the size of essentially everything since their wide implementation in Ukraine. The typical squad size prior to Ukraine was 12 and now infantry are having to move in groups of 2-4. That alone is a huge blow to what infantry can do.
The problem is the huge cost differential. You can do all of that, and get a tank that costs 20 million each that can shoot down drones. The enemy then just sends more cheap drones at it.
Huge metal cans are no longer cost effective weapons.
it wouldnt cost 20 million if it werent for MIC grifting, one of those tanks could take out a swarm of cheap drones with an autocannon burst of airbust shells. Drones are not going to replace tanks and infantry, they are simply going to change how they are built and used, and what weapons and engineering features are considered necessary. Like airplanes didn’t completely remove the need for naval power, it just made aircraft carriers important instead of destroyers. it is ignorant tech hype to assume that the Current Trending Thing is going to be the be-all end-all of warfare, there is no reason to believe that. Drones are going to be a part of warfare, they are not going to replace it.
Counterpoint, a tank trying to use terrain for cover is going to lose the ability to “see” so the drones will have the advantage. They’ll be able to get close enough to spot for artillery or drop their payload before the electronic jamming + robo-AA gun can do its thing. Open terrain would give the AA and jamming a better chance of being effective but the optics on a drone are probably good enough to see the tank (and call in artillery) well before any of the anti-drone kit would effective.
The anti-drone kit will always be more expensive to develop, field, maintain, and keep operating in the field than a 500 dollar drone with few 1980’s era anti-tank landmines strapped underneath with a custom fuse installed.
And its not like the drones even need to get a catastrophic kill to be successful. Damage the optics on the fire control system and the main gun is far less effective, damage the thermal/nightvision scope and the tank is effectively blind during most of the time its going to operating, ding the barrel enough to get a bend and the main gun can’t be fired, the ring mounted machine guns can’t take too much damage, a chunk of their ammunition is going to be strapped to the outside of the turret and can easily be lost if a 1/2 pound of explosive gets close enough when it goes off to send shrapnel into the ammo cans, strap some white phosphorous or thermite to the drone and if it can melt the antenna the radios are pretty much useless…
the tanks will obviously have their own drones and infantry support lol, a tank is usually not the best reconnaissance equipment whether drones are around or not. an autocannon and the electronics required for targeting drones might be an expensive initial investment, but the individual 20-30mm shells will not be quite as expensive, probably similar in cost to a mine or a grenade, especially if a hypothetical organization had a mature industry dedicated to producing war materiel (i.e. Russia), and a single gun system could hypothetically take out multiple drones, unlike an american style missile system where each shot costs tens of thousands of dollars at least. Infantry usually cannot carry weapons with the range or accuracy to target drones, but they can still recon and feed intelligence to things that can carry large weapon systems.
I definitely think tank and vehicle design will drastically change, i think traditional large cannons and heavy armor on tanks will become less important for ‘frontline’ military vehicles, and they will have something like a drone swarm hangar or missiles as a primary weapon system, with smaller weapons like autocannons and large MGs for emergencies/ambushes, with less overall armor and more of a focus on situational awareness and maneuverability.
like, hypothetically even an infantryman could damage a tank with handheld equipment, or even just by digging a ditch at the right place and hiding it. this doesn’t make all tanks obsolete forever. tanks have excellent range compared to infantry, and can carry heavier equipment more effectively over rough terrain than trucks, and working in tandem with well coordinated infantry can respond to a variety of threats effectively, especially if equipped for the specific threats they will face. Add drones into the mix on BOTH sides of a conflict, and the tank has access to excellent aerial surveillance and even counter-swarms of its own drones to intercept those of the enemy.
Using a scenario like ukraine, where one side relies on paltry numbers of the outdated equipment of another country’s already outdated and grift-laden armament industry stripped of all the advanced electronics and armor and munitions, to argue the point that drones have completely replaced tanks for all time in perpetuity, is getting abit ahead of ourselves i think. Russia still makes and uses tanks, China still makes and maintains tanks, i’m sure Hamas would love to be able to produce and use tanks if they had the opportunity and proper conditions. like sure the American tanks are overdesigned expensive grift crap, but you can still hypothetically build a cheaper and similarly effective tank.
its hilarious to me how effective drones have been, seemingly just because no one has bothered to put a gun on a tank that can aim up high enough to shoot drones. a little bit of thermal or LIDAR imaging systems and a 20mm autocannon with laser rangefinding and airburst AA shells should do the trick relatively easily, and we’ve been making autocannons for anti-air purposes since ww2 at least. I shouldnt be surprised because america can’t even replace the M2 browning .50 cal machine gun from ww2, or build their own modern SPG artillery tank, despite numerous attempts. another L for the ‘capitalism brings innovation’ crowd lol.
The problem I think isn’t really that the tank is vulnerable to drones, but that you will never really make infantry not vulnerable to drones. Infantry protects the tanks from conventional AT methods, but if you use the drone to kill the infantry then a tank relatively is pretty much dead. Also I think they are going to replace the m2.
They’ve been trying to replace it since like the 60s, and the most recent attempt flopped about 10 years ago.
AFAIK infantry are usually much more resilient to artillery or aerial bombardment than tanks, since infantry can weasel into holes and micro-terrain features to use as cover, and could use certain materials to camouflage thermal signatures easier than tanks - worst case scenario they can dig tunnels, which tanks cannot (yet, most of the time). ground drones or drones that fly closer to the ground could find infantry easier perhaps but would have a harder time navigating more complicated terrain than the open sky.
Drones have also limited the size of essentially everything since their wide implementation in Ukraine. The typical squad size prior to Ukraine was 12 and now infantry are having to move in groups of 2-4. That alone is a huge blow to what infantry can do.
The problem is the huge cost differential. You can do all of that, and get a tank that costs 20 million each that can shoot down drones. The enemy then just sends more cheap drones at it.
Huge metal cans are no longer cost effective weapons.
it wouldnt cost 20 million if it werent for MIC grifting, one of those tanks could take out a swarm of cheap drones with an autocannon burst of airbust shells. Drones are not going to replace tanks and infantry, they are simply going to change how they are built and used, and what weapons and engineering features are considered necessary. Like airplanes didn’t completely remove the need for naval power, it just made aircraft carriers important instead of destroyers. it is ignorant tech hype to assume that the Current Trending Thing is going to be the be-all end-all of warfare, there is no reason to believe that. Drones are going to be a part of warfare, they are not going to replace it.
a huge metal can will be very expensive no matter what. tanks don’t make much economic sense anymore.
Counterpoint, a tank trying to use terrain for cover is going to lose the ability to “see” so the drones will have the advantage. They’ll be able to get close enough to spot for artillery or drop their payload before the electronic jamming + robo-AA gun can do its thing. Open terrain would give the AA and jamming a better chance of being effective but the optics on a drone are probably good enough to see the tank (and call in artillery) well before any of the anti-drone kit would effective.
The anti-drone kit will always be more expensive to develop, field, maintain, and keep operating in the field than a 500 dollar drone with few 1980’s era anti-tank landmines strapped underneath with a custom fuse installed.
And its not like the drones even need to get a catastrophic kill to be successful. Damage the optics on the fire control system and the main gun is far less effective, damage the thermal/nightvision scope and the tank is effectively blind during most of the time its going to operating, ding the barrel enough to get a bend and the main gun can’t be fired, the ring mounted machine guns can’t take too much damage, a chunk of their ammunition is going to be strapped to the outside of the turret and can easily be lost if a 1/2 pound of explosive gets close enough when it goes off to send shrapnel into the ammo cans, strap some white phosphorous or thermite to the drone and if it can melt the antenna the radios are pretty much useless…
the tanks will obviously have their own drones and infantry support lol, a tank is usually not the best reconnaissance equipment whether drones are around or not. an autocannon and the electronics required for targeting drones might be an expensive initial investment, but the individual 20-30mm shells will not be quite as expensive, probably similar in cost to a mine or a grenade, especially if a hypothetical organization had a mature industry dedicated to producing war materiel (i.e. Russia), and a single gun system could hypothetically take out multiple drones, unlike an american style missile system where each shot costs tens of thousands of dollars at least. Infantry usually cannot carry weapons with the range or accuracy to target drones, but they can still recon and feed intelligence to things that can carry large weapon systems.
I definitely think tank and vehicle design will drastically change, i think traditional large cannons and heavy armor on tanks will become less important for ‘frontline’ military vehicles, and they will have something like a drone swarm hangar or missiles as a primary weapon system, with smaller weapons like autocannons and large MGs for emergencies/ambushes, with less overall armor and more of a focus on situational awareness and maneuverability.
like, hypothetically even an infantryman could damage a tank with handheld equipment, or even just by digging a ditch at the right place and hiding it. this doesn’t make all tanks obsolete forever. tanks have excellent range compared to infantry, and can carry heavier equipment more effectively over rough terrain than trucks, and working in tandem with well coordinated infantry can respond to a variety of threats effectively, especially if equipped for the specific threats they will face. Add drones into the mix on BOTH sides of a conflict, and the tank has access to excellent aerial surveillance and even counter-swarms of its own drones to intercept those of the enemy.
Using a scenario like ukraine, where one side relies on paltry numbers of the outdated equipment of another country’s already outdated and grift-laden armament industry stripped of all the advanced electronics and armor and munitions, to argue the point that drones have completely replaced tanks for all time in perpetuity, is getting abit ahead of ourselves i think. Russia still makes and uses tanks, China still makes and maintains tanks, i’m sure Hamas would love to be able to produce and use tanks if they had the opportunity and proper conditions. like sure the American tanks are overdesigned expensive grift crap, but you can still hypothetically build a cheaper and similarly effective tank.