- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Because they make a lot of sense. Take a look at Ukraine. Armored vehicles carry jammers and cope cages. They make proper hits much harder. Modern tanks, which are used in Ukraine, are also well enough armored to take multiple hits, before going down. Artillery is still cheaper and more destructive per shoot. Especially in combination with spotter drones, it is extremely deadly. That is why Ukraine is building them.
Obviously drones have a huge impact, but we still see both artillery and armored vehicles being used and delivered. Clearly there are reasons for that.
“…armored vehicles look obsolete.”
The same old song sung after exactly every bigger military confrontation since their invention.
And guess what… more than a century later nothing actually changed. Tanks and armored vehicles perform a function. One that drones cannot replicate. And so tanks and and armored vehicles will (again) adapt to fullfil their function under changed conditions.
You are both right. Armored vehicles still serve a function, but I think it is fair to say that that function has diminished or at least changed significantly.
Because tanks can do things drones can’t.
This exact same question was asked when people made big antitank rifles, and again when fighters started bombing tanks. Then again with basic AT missiles, and again with things like Javelin.
And tanks can do things all those weapon systems can’t, so there’s still a place for tanks.
I mean, tanks and IFVs with infantry take and hold ground.
Drones are use to harass units, saturate AD and basically deny ground taking advances.
These are different tactical issues with their own importance.
That is the same boring argument that is always made, and it always fails to actually provide what tanks can do under the presence of cheap anti-tank drones, which is really not a lot.
And I suspect the failure to actually spell out what tanks supposedly still can do, also has to do with the fact that these theoretical capabilities are primarily offensive. So the argument boils down to: we need that capability to attack our neighbours, which when put that way doesn’t sound that good, right?
That is the same boring argument that is always made, and it always fails to actually provide what tanks can do under the presence of cheap anti-tank drones, which is really not a lot.
I love that I just pointed out that this argument is still the same as when they made AT rifles, fighter bombs, shaped charge rockets, top attack missiles, etc etc… And yet you decided to make the argument again anyway.
All of these things have caused countermeasures to be deployed, either in the tank or in mutually supporting elements. Sloped armor, ERA, EW systems and hard kill countermeasures. Tanks have gotten MORE survivable pretty much constantly since the 1950s, but people started claiming tanks would never be used again since literally the end of WW1, just like you are. And all of them were wrong, just like you are.
Tanks take, hold and dominate ground. Tanks are an absolutely vital part of combined arms operations, and if you don’t have tanks you will lose to someone who does have tanks. Why you’re seeing a fuckton of tank losses by Russia is because Russia sucks at combined arms.
Can a group of 20 tanks advance through a dense forest and take a populated city? No. Can a group of infantry with drone support advance over an empty field? Equally no.
Tanks will become obsolete once something else is invented that can take, hole and dominate ground. Just like the battleship was replaced by the carrier when it turned out to be better to sink large ships at range without sinking itself.
And I suspect the failure to actually spell out what tanks supposedly still can do, also has to do with the fact that these theoretical capabilities are primarily offensive. So the argument boils down to: we need that capability to attack our neighbours, which when put that way doesn’t sound that good, right?
This is an incredibly, massive naïve and reductive view of war. If an enemy steps 1 meter into your country, it will require an offensive action to remove them. If you want to take strategic ground the enemy holds, you need to be on the offense. If the enemy penetrates your defensive line, you can either retreat the entire line, or launch a counteroffensive.
The ability to attack is critical in pretty much every defensive action pretty much since the first human threw a rock at another human.
You are completely overlooking the fact that drones are massively cheaper and per-unit also more effective than these other anti-tank weapons you mention. Furthermore, the problem is not that tanks can not be still upgraded further, but that they are waaaay to expensive for the limited benefit they still offer in a battlefield with anti-tank drones deployed. Adding expensive anti-drone defense that is unlikely to be very effective just makes this an even worse argument.
And sorry, that is not a naive view, but rather one that looks beyond narrow tactical considerations, just like the cost argument above. You might be still able to win a battle with tanks, but you can’t win a war with them anymore.
Helicopters with anti-tank munitions did not cause the end of the tank, it just led to the development of better supportive anti-air elements.
Drones with anti-tank munitions is not causing the end of the tank, it will just lead to the development of better supportive anti-drone elements.
Also, I don’t think you could ever “win a war” with just tanks. They always had been and always will be one piece of a broader combined arms system.
Helicopters are an exceptionally bad counter example as they are uniquely vulnerable and expensive to operate and thus can only be deployed in a very limited fashion.
Helicopters are an excellent example, because they are uniquely vulnerable BECAUSE OF countermeasure systems that were created to deal with them.
Well, if there is ever an equally effective (in costs and actual efficiency) counter-measure against anti-tank drones I am happy to change my opinion.
drones are massively cheaper and per-unit also more effective than these other anti-tank weapons you mention.
Not really, tanks aren’t being taken out by your cheap and cheerful $400 fpv drones. They need something like a Lancet at minimum which Wikipedia tells me has a $35,000 (or $37,000 - i guess using different exchange rates?) export price which is actually a bit more than a Kornet ATGM at $26,000 (thanks again Jimmy Wales).
An AT4 missile is about 3000 bucks, but tanks still exist.
A bullet is a few cents, yet soldiers are pretty popular in every conflict too.
It’s almost as if this is a shitty argument.
There is a huge range of drone between fpv drones and those complex loitering ammunition you mention. The ones most commonly mentioned and deployed by Ukraine against tanks, cost a few thousand at most.
drones are massively cheaper and per-unit also more effective than these other anti-tank weapons you mention.
And because they are so massively more effective we know of tanks getting hit by a dozen of themn and just moving on… Oh, wait. Your reference for everything are old Russian tanks (not build for quality but quantity even back then) used badly because Russia sucks at combined arms. All while using support systems that are even older or have their supposed capability only on paper.
Pretending that the war in Ukraine is a modern war because there are mass amounts of drones used is constantly missing the point. That war is as much defined by using obsolete tech and tactics while severely lacking capable air defenses as it is by the addition of drones that incidently exactly exploit that gap.
You can make thousands of drones for the cost of a single modern tank. No amount of hand wringing is going to change the fact that it has gotten a lot cheaper and effective to destroy tanks because of them.
An AT4 missile costs less than a tenth of what a lancet anti tank drone costs, have been around for 30 years and yet tanks still exist.
A bullet costs less than a soldier, why aren’t soldiers obsolete yet?
Because neither are as effective per unit.
And so defenses against that specific threat will improve (see: anti-air capable remote weapons stations, active defense, EW).
it has gotten a lot cheaper and effective to destroy tanks
The same was said when RPGs were invented, then again for ATGMs, the again for their top-attack variants… yet here we are.
The thinking you have in your post is the reason why the most advanced military on the earth wastes 7 pac3 missiles on a single Shahed in Iran.
Truth is, nobody have good solutions vs drones yet. Bigger ones like Shahed, yes, maybe, if you have a lot of practice and are capable to build layered AA grid. FPVs are uncounterable yet.
The thinking you have in your post is the reason why the most advanced military on the earth wastes 7 pac3 missiles on a single Shahed in Iran.
That’s because they are as wasteful and learning averse as they are capable on paper.
The US military is used to fighting adversaries way below their own capabilities and doesn’t worry about conserving resources, because they like imagining that their supply chain will just deliver more. Iran has spent decades preparing for just this fight, and developed weapons, capabilities, and strategies to specifically exploit this weakness. Sending countless waves of cheap drones to expend expensive and hard to replace interceptor missiles is an attack aimed at both magazine depth and production capabilities. Every drone that gets intercepted by an expensive missile is a victory for whoever launched the drone, because it does damage by the millions of dollars just by destroying an, (or worse, multiple) interceptor missile(s), and depletes the interceptor stockpile.
Ukraine has figured out counter drone tactics quite well already, and will get better out of sheer necessity.
Ukraine has figured out how to counter shaheds - and it’s not some silver bullet, it’s a huge system of quick responders AND some of them are antiair drones teams.
Ukraine haven’t figured out what to do with enemy FPVs. Neither did russia. Which created a deep killzone out of the frontlines. Any serious discussions about defense strategy should be taking this experience as a baseline, not as some incident only applicable for the poor countries.
why do you post a reaction and not the original upload?
Wait did I? Fucking YouTube man, it’s gone to shit
Fixed my link
There are some tank types that provide capabilities necessary or beneficial to non-aggressive military operations. Bridge laying tanks and recovery tanks ensure retreat options, engineering tanks enable forces to fortify positions, anti aircraft tanks should be self explanatory, mine removing tanks can not only clear enemy minefields but also your own after a war. Those are tanks that are necessary not only for offensive capabilities and many models of these types aren’t even armed.
IFVs offer protected mobility to infantry, howitzer tanks offer mobility and protection to artillery (and according to Ukraine, artillery is still quite important in their defensive efforts), etc.Cheap drones may be or become the prime anti tank weapons on modern battlefields, but warfare has always been and will always be an arms race. Sooner or later, someone will find a counter to drones, tanks will be upgraded (and probably future tanks could be crewless, too, and be another drone type), and the wheel keeps spinning.
Offensive and defensive isn’t that simple.
Pretty much anything armoured on tank chassis is armoured and built on tank chassis to give it the capability to operate alongside tanks while under fire. This is very well an extremely offensive capability. Especially with things like bridge layers, demining vehicles, and anti-aircraft systems, because they allow tanks (and other mechanised units) to advance into places otherwise not reachable or untenable for them.
On the other hand, tanks can also be used defensively, and some are built especially with defensive use in mind. The entire Leopard family for instance was designed specifically for the purpose of defensive (delaying) warfare against overwhelming tank forces (The Warsaw Pact had way more tanks than NATO during the entire Cold War) using “shoot and scoot” tactics, which is a big reason for their focus on very high mobility. (for example, they can go backwards as fast as forwards, and sacrifice quite a bit of armour for speed)
Cheap drones may be or become the prime anti tank weapons on modern battlefields, but warfare has always been and will always be an arms race. Sooner or later, someone will find a counter to drones, tanks will be upgraded (and probably future tanks could be crewless, too, and be another drone type), and the wheel keeps spinning.
Indeed. The tank has been declared dead for so often (pretty much every time someone invented a new anti-tank weapon) that it’s very likely to be a false alarm once again. There are many things that can take out a tank, including another tank. (With current technology it’s impossible to armour any practical vehicle in a way that gives complete immunity to a tank gun, common wisdom for tank on tank combat is whoever sees the opponent first and shoots first, wins the engagement, because one well placed shot will at least disable a tank) Pretty much any modern war is fought using a combined arms approach, tanks are just one part of this. Cheap mass produced Drones are a relatively new addition, and countermeasures are still evolving. Radio controlled drones can be jammed, and the wires of wire guided drones can be cut. In the end, especially the small drones typically used for anti-tank work can be shot down with something as simple as a shotgun, which is centuries old technology, fires cheap “dumb” ammunition, but has seen relatively limited use in warfare.
Yes, the local construction site also has a lot of ”tanks" by that loose definition 🙄
Your local construction site has armoured vehicles capable of doing their jobs while under enemy fire? Why?
A caterpillar with some armor plating is now a tank?
Is this just “a caterpillar with some armour plating”? Or this one? What about this bridge-layer currently operated by Ukraine (among others)?
Do you think a tank is only a tank when it has a big gun?
Do you think a tank is only a tank when it has a big gun?
If I understood the nomenclature used in English discussions, for them a tank indeed is an armoured tracked vehicle with a big gun, i.e. a MBT. In opposite, in German a Panzer is (almost) any heavy armoured ‘all terrain’ vehicle, e.g. also the PzH 2000, bridge layers (Bieber, Leguan), engineering vehicles (Dachs), Recovery vehicles (Büffel), IFVs (Marder, Puma) or the armoured multi purpose vehicles like Fuchs and Boxer.
Yes, because “tank” isn’t defined by armor plating or tracks, but by operational capabilities the weapon category offers.
Difference is the above mentioned are armored.
An army is not only tanks with big fat guns. All the mentioned assets lay the groundwork for any meaningful operation. What good are drones, if you cannot get a foothold and bring in forces to occupy landscapes?
None of these are tanks though. They are tracked vehicles with some armor plating (and even that isn’t necessarily the case for artillery or mobile air-defense). A tank as it is commonly understood has specific operational capabilities and those are are mostly denied by anti-tank drones.
If you adhere to the strict definition of “A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle intended as a primary offensive weapon in front-line ground combat.” you are right.
Still. While we see less tank on tank combat, we see a lot of tanks shooting at fixed positions. Same goes with IFVs as they unload troops or enable tactical advances. They are far from being obsolete but they’re using smaller windows of opportunity. And sometime it takes a lot of anti tank drones before a tank had a mission kill. They’re still valuable tactical assets.
Edit: found the image which explains the definition problem at reddit.
You still need armoured vehicles even with a static frontline. As for the actual tanks, they are questionable now.
Artillery is still there though and not outdated by FPVs. Depending on the issue at hand, it might be easier to blast someone with artillery.
A tank can do nothing to a drone, lol. If you brought a tank to my place, it would hold its ground till the first drone visits it.
In my civilian perception, tank is mostly useless. Especially given the price.
Is there still a drone threat if one of these canons is close-by?
These are estimated to cost EUR 12M per unit.
If drones cost EUR 10k - 50k, then you can get over 200 to 1000 units for that money.
Will it be able to stop several hundred drones coming at it?
It will probably be guarding something that’s worth another couple 10M, like a tank platoon.
I’m sure that these will have many good uses. In many cases you can be sure that you won’t be facing huge drone swarms. But for large scale warfare, we really need some new ideas.
Also: This has been in development since 2018 and is still not rolled out. There’s another issue raised in the article.
To my understanding these are good against artillery equivalent drones, but not the low flying and lingering anti-tank drones described in the article.
The better comparison would be the Maginot-line.
It’s not that the Maginot line didn’t work, though new technologies like shaped charges made it more vulnerable. It got by-passed. And it’s not even like that was a sure thing. If the german tank columns had been caught by bombers on those narrow, winding roads through the Ardennes, the offensive might have ended in a massacre. But somehow, they failed to spot huge armies invading their country.
Eventually, what we have is a failure to accept paradigm shifts. They take new technology to make existing tools better. They fail to anticipate and prepare for the changes that new technology means for the way things are done.
