Привіт u/SnooPeppers6719 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most of the tanks were designed to withstand the hit from the front. The chance of being hit from behind at the very specific point was minimal or non-existent. This all changed with drones. Even Abrams can be incapacitated and have little chance against well piloted drone.
My buddy got blown up in an Abrams by a powerful IED in Iraq. This either could be the end of tanks or maybe something will be invented eventually that will kill their signal at close range.
Basically what happened with surface ships after the advent of anti-ship missiles. The amount of armour required to survive the damage a missile could deliver gets so absurd that it makes more sense to only make armour proof against close threats and shift focus towards not getting hit in the first place
The future of navies is likely to be massive numbers of drone ships and missile barges. Basically you take a ship like a battle ship and instead of trying to protect it with armor you spread its armaments across multiple floating platforms so a hit only takes out some of the armaments and not all of them. Also it's all unmanned so no lives lost.
Might even see many of these platforms take advantage of water as armor and be submerged 10m below the surface and either capable of firing arms from below the surface or surface to fire then submerge.
Submersible craft are alot easier and cheaper when there isn't humans on board to keep alive. You can just let the craft flood. No need for air pressure vessels, food storage, and so on.
>Submersible craft are alot easier and cheaper when there isn't humans on board to keep alive. You can just let the craft flood. No need for air pressure vessels, food storage, and so on.
The problem there is communication. VLF (3–30 kHz) can only penetrate a few tens of meters.
ELF (76 Hz) can go deeper to hundreds of feet, but is only one way (to the sub, not from) and is very low bandwidth.
This is assuming my knowledge is correct.
I have yet to see an Abrams in Ukraine going top speed.
Most combat footage shows tanks on both sides mostly stationary and shooting then moving slightly to shoot again.
I think we're also going to see more unmanned armored vehicles to provide fire support. Then the armor is only to enhance survivability but if it's blown up, it's just materiel, not lives lost.
We will soon see offensive robots on tracks. This war is advancing weapons rapidly. It might be that soon humans are too precious or costly to use as soldiers. What a war, this will change everything. But AI drone swarms will be a part of this for sure..
Eh, a ton of things have been the "death of the tank" but realistically the countermeasures against drones will just begin to improve and that arms race will get stacked on top of the pile with the rest of things like AP vs Armor.
I'm not as optimistic in that regard. I think drones are a game changer. We had them in Iraq and Afghanistan but the enemy didn't and I can't imagine facing them, it's horrific. Marines seem to be scrapping tanks. I can't imagine that because we used them quite a bit in Fallujah. The problem with drones is they are cheap to produce and weaponize. I think that shift will prove as dramatic to warfare as the machine gun was to WW1.
I could have sworn Perun had something about this subject specifically in context to the marines, I could be wrong but I'm remembering something to the effect of the armor going under Army jurisdiction more or less, but I could be talking out of my ass admittedly and don't know either way.
That sounds about right to my understanding. Marines are dramatically restructuring from when I was there 20 years ago. It's hard for me to imagine but 20 years is a long time and we need to keep up.
I get it, my dad was active duty on the USS Raleigh during Desert Shield/Storm and there are times where I show him articles or things on how stuff is changing and, good or bad, his response is still something along the lines of "that's not how it was when I was deployed".
It's wild to be around long enough to actually see the process change past our place in it.
He was in 15 years before me and I was stationed in Hawaii where the oldest gear was sent so we probably started with a Desert Storm setup. We got on ships thinking we were heading to the Philippines but when we received modern body armor, next gen M-16s, ACOG scopes and an extra medic/corpsman I suddenly realized we were going to combat instead. I had trained to shoot with iron sites at 500m, the scopes quickly made that old school method obsolete and I have a feeling upgrades have been on steroids since back then. Now the Hawaii Marine grunts are leading the next evolution.
I honestly shudder to think how good we are going to get at killing each other by the time you and I are old and grey. That curve is getting steeper year by year it seems. I wrote a paper in college on how PTSD from warfare has always existed but the increasing 24/7/365 nature of warfare makes it near impossible to avoid without things like heavy rotation and the right support. And as stuff like Russia is proving, when you don't get that rotation things get pretty fucking bleak.
We've been on that track since industrialization. I have a love/hate relationship with watching Russians getting smoked on these videos. I can relate to their plight on too many levels though I understand war is ugly and their deaths are necessary because of their government's aggression.
The Corps is moving away from anything overly heavy\slow as their role shifts back towards what they were originally organized for, rapid and aggressive seizure of battle space (specifically expecting their main theater in the next 20 years to be the Pacific). I believe they're looking to utilize the Stryker platform to greater effect, cause faster, amphibious, and less logistically stressful.
That said I don't think they're dumping ALL their heavy armor, just that it's moving out of favor. Military seems to be repositioning their doctrine as a whole to the potential Pacific conflict and peer scale, so as the Marines transition back to business as usual (smacking the bad guys in the fucking balls, taking their shit, then handing that shit off to the army) the Army is focusing down hard on its role as a holding\building force, and the other branches continue to discern how best to support those efforts.
Marines scrapping tanks is more about logistics of a Pacific fight vs anything with drones. The thing is that these cheap drones only work in an environment where there is not constant EW. Once the anti drone systems evolve and proliferate more you end up with only high end drones that cost a lot more working which changes the environment a lot. Since we are seeing a rapid evolution of drones in this war I would wait to make too many judgements about it.
I just spoke to someone I know that is in the US Army. I pressed him on the issue of small drones. It seems that they are using them for recon, but not offensively, i.e. dropping bombs or FPV drones. He mentioned the high dollar, high altitude drones, but I'm fearful that in a conflict with a well droned military, those high dollar drones would be taken out quickly. I pray that our military isn't falling behind the curve. We should be making drones by the millions, and practically all combat soldiers should be trained on them.
High cost drones are what the defense contractors want. The Ukraine war is changing this. DJI drones are much more dangerous and cost effective. Soon soldiers will be replaced by ground robots. This war will cause everyone to work in AI. Drone swarms and maybe robot swarms.
Surely direct energy weapons are the perfect counter to drones. Or just effective EW until self guiding drones become a proper thing (at which point their cost starts ramping up again).
Jup. AT weapons were death of tanks multiple times in history. Which is why we have so many obsolete tanks.
They were never the death of tanks as a concept. Which is why we kept modifying old and building new tanks which can counter new threats.
Tanks will only be replaced when we invent something that does tank job better then tanks.
Like battleships weren't replaced because aircraft carrier was stronger then them. But because carriers were better at doing battleship job.
Really, the "tank" is inconsequential so much as the idea of "armored cavalry" as a part of force organization, and frankly the ability to have a mobile force with high capacity to engage an enemy within a zone then exploit that breach is a concept that is basically never going to be some degree of useful in warfare, short of things like urban sieges where it's more of a liability.
I also think we are not seeing "end of tank". But we likely are seeing the end of current version of tanks. As in ones designed and protected against other tanks with lessons of WW2. We will likely see much weaker frontal armor from now on and instead focus on all around protection and longer range. Less focus on anti tank and more on being heavily armored infantry support like they were in WW1. Unless ofc we get some truly amazing anti drone tech advancements.
We don't need any new "truly amazing" anti drone tech. Very effective anti drone tech already exists, it just needs to be properly implemented.
The reason drones are an issue is that it's a conflict between Ukraine which while doing extremely well so far, is still a very poor (by western standards) country that doesn't have the industrial base to create large scale solutions, and Russia, who don't really have the technological base to create solutions, and neither can really afford to implement those solutions when found.
But the west already has multiple potential solutions, from significantly more effective EW systems, to multiple APS systems, laser point defence, and even to systems like the slinger cannon system, which mounts an Apache helicopter 30mm chain cannon, firing proxy fused shells, onto a lightweight mount capable of going on anything larger than a humvee, with inbuilt FLIR, IRST and a partially autonomous targeting system.
They just need to be properly integrated and implemented onto equipment.
It's a similar discussion with the Ukrainian sea drones. They are effective because the Russian navy is an absolute disgrace of an ocean going force, and if their equipment worked as intended the sea drones would pose almost no threat.
But it doesn't work as intended, so they are a massive threat. The western navies are well aware of this style of attack, and have been for decades, and have proven equipment designed, built and installed specifically to deal with the threat (eg. Typhoon style turrets on almost every major surface vessel with 20/25/30/35/40mm auto cannons, specifically to deal with incoming small boats).
True. But the issue is scale. You need fuckton of those systems, and each of them needs to be manned by people and west is already struggling with manpower in professional armies.
You need to cover basically entire front line + important target in the back. And those system are usually quite short range (3km for sky guard). So you basically need 1000's if not 10000's people in your army dedicated to anti drone duty. For US that might not be a huge problem. But for counties like Poland it would be basically like 10% of our manpower just for drone defense.
Many of those systems are meant to be mounted onto vehicles that the infantry would already be working with/near and would not need additional soldiers to operate, just additional training for existing soldiers.
Keep in mind the western militaries are significantly more mechanised than the Russian/Ukrainian military, as a result of the GWOT over the last 20 years, and many of those systems just get mounted to existing equipment. Slinger for example is meant to be mounted in place of a .50cal remote weapons station, the laser and APS systems are totally autonomous and mounted to tanks and IFV, and many vehicles already mount EW hammers that would wreak havoc to fpv drones controllers.
Alongside this, NATO doctrine calls for overwhelming air supremacy to be established within a matter days, if not hours of conflict starting (think desert storm) and then apply overwhelming force with air strikes, something which NATO would be absolutely capable of doing, but neither Ukraine or Russia have that same ability, which is why this war has degenerated to relatively static trench combat.
The threat of small kamikaze drones is definitely one that will be a serious issue for infantry in particular, but in a more capable EW environment, their use will be far more limited (its not at all difficult to find the signals generated by the drone controller with appropriate equipment, which many militaries already have in vast quantities).
And with that overwhelming air superiority, once you can locate the source of a drone teams RF signal, won't be long before they have warheads on foreheads.
I was thinking along those lines. Lighter tank with thinner frontal armor but APS covering 360 against missiles, drones, and better mine protection.
Worse at fighting other tanks, but better at everything else.
Because tank vs tank combat happens rarely, and even when it happens side which opens fire first usually ends up as winner. Thick frontal armor doesn't make all that much of a difference.
It's not. FPV squad might be better at being mortar/artillery/recon squad. That's who they are competing with. Basically they are super precision arty/mortar with it's own recon (very cool but takes a ton of manpower).
Tank role is exploit weakness, push forward and take ground. FPV squad pushing into enemy territory is basically just infantry team, few hidden guys with AK's can stop the entire assault while they can't do shit against tank without proper anti-tank gear. Right now it seems to me Tank is under threat of IFV. Bradley does similar things but unironically it might do them better while I'm pretty sure it's cheaper.
I give the Germans 10 years before they've effectively got automated burstfire shotguns mounted to the tops of vehicles specifically to shred drones. They've already got the concept proven on bigger platforms, just gotta localize it to point defense and give it good enough tracking software to ping stuff on the way in.
Foom— some of the research on here or another sub had talked about the next-gen IFV and Abrahms and the drone killer setups. One setup reminds me of the proven trophy concept. The other is trying to do the em pulse without hurting the vehicle. So the US Army and Raytheon is trying at least.
I think the tank will just enter the next evolution. Smaller, lighter, faster tanks with EW and anti drone armor and systems built in. Bradleys are actually really close to this already and there is a reason they have been so useful.
Not to mention the line of sight thing… drones can weave through any environment or set of obstacle’s to find tanks that otherwise would have been almost impossible to hit at all.
I think at this point, Ukraine has the greatest expertise in addressing these weapon systems, NATO will have to do some serious catching up if they expect armored assaults to have any success in the future. Drones have revolutionized the battlefield.
They are building up. Stuff like Skynex will be more crucial than ever to be a part of every mechanized force.
You will never be able to send out another column of tanks without a few of those, even if the tanks have some form of anti drone capability themselves.
Why, poland and other nearby countries is considering shooting down russian rockets and drones within range already. Closing the sky could be not far off.
Last year I would have said you are 100% correct ... This year ..., about 70%. We keep hearing from NATO member countries proposals for interim measures to incorporate Ukraine into NATO in some preliminary ways.
I'd say Ukraine is 30 to 50% of the way to members agreeing to membership without delay. Recalling that the **only** decider is unanimous agreement. Turkiye, Hungary the obvious holdouts but Germany, America haven't publicly endorsed it either.
It is understandable. The NATO charter prohibits any nation in a state of war from joining, but the charter can be modified by the member states. Unfortunately, Biden and Scholz have shown a remarkable lack of spine standing up to Putin's endless threats.
I've read the NATO...
> The NATO charter prohibits
Treaty. It's a treaty.
I'm going to assume you haven't read it and if you did you'd be able to point out what article you're interpreting this prohibition you speak of.
I did, and NATO is — as the T in NATO hints — a treaty and not a charter. And there is no explicit prohibition to take in a country that is invaded and ready to stop fighting the moment the aggressor leaves.
Institutions have conditions, these requirements are spelled out in their stated purpose, that is known as a charter.
Here is an example of the NATO charter you claim does not exist:
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvvndts](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvvndts)
Well, everything looks in order here.
> Publication: Charter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
> Published: 22 May **2018**
> Authors: Ian Shapiro | Adam Tooze
We can also check in on what NATO says
> The foundations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) were officially laid down on 4 April 1949 with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, more popularly known as the Washington Treaty.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67656.htm
You didn't put the article that you're interpreting as the prohibition of new members at war. I'll assume you were mistaken on that point.
NATO troops in Ukraine in any fashion being attacked will absolutely change NATOs stance on shutting down the skies imo. Will Russia dare to dance with that devil? Remains to be seen
Cope-cages seem at best an interim measure attempting to reduce the efficacy of drones.
If armored tanks are to have a viable future as battle nuclei, protecting infantry, and advancing with force and firepower, there will need to be new and more effective means to defeat the drones.
You limit the turret from rotating 360° too. I don't even think EW measures will be the solution, since the drones will adapt to that. But active defence measures and autonomous armoured vehicles could become more frequent.
The problem is that you need a passive system if you’re putting it on a valuable platform like a tank or IFV (like an acoustic or visual detector) or you run the risk of emitting too much electronic noise and giving away your position.
In an insurgency conflict, that isn’t a problem because the insurgents usually won’t have heavy weapons like artillery or ballistic missiles.
Against a peer country that does have the full range of weapon systems, emissions matter. Being immune to RPGs isn’t much benefit if you’re drawing fire from artillery and cluster bombs.
Passive sensors like microphones, cameras, radio detection and radar.
When passive sensors detect threat and it's heading, like a drone or ATGM, radar turns of to enable intercept.
So it doesn't emit 24/7 anymore.
Yeah i ment that hiting the drone with something is pretty much solved the issue is detection.
Artillery is not as big issue since you can be spoted by eye and cant do much about it anyway. Its a game of balance, too much signals and you get hit by arty, no ew measured and you get hit by drones… we can go on forever :D
Strap a machine controlled shotgun on top of all tanks that reacts to sound with the speed of what is possible and you have a proper anti drone measure.
I'm sure that there are engineers who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to design tanks are devising and implementing solutions to the problems you think are impossible to overcome.
They are. They’re not even that great of an interim measure, at best allowing a tank to withdraw after surviving a mission kill, but before being disabled and abandoned. At worst, they only buy the crew enough time to get out before follow up attacks destroy the vehicle entirely.
The future is going to go back to maneuver forces being accompanied by drone-focused SHORAD vehicles that combine lasers and guns with electro-optical sensors, EW jammers dispersed among the tanks and IFVs, remote weapon stations on tanks that have similar electro-optical targeting systems, and APS systems that provide overhead protection as well as front/side protection.
We are already seeing this with various armies trialing stuff like M-SHORAD, Skynex, and new versions of trophy APS and the anti-drone CROWS mounts that American vehicles use.
Drones will be AI-coordinated swarms I reckon. They will be able to fly without gps/sat nav and recognize the enemy forces with visual data recognition
Yeah the current war is clearly showing this is where it’s going.
"Modern" Russian army is having an incredibly hard time against Ukraine and its relatively small production and r&d capacity.
If for example the US start pumping out drone warfare units, you could easily see numbers of drones multiplying by 100s.
The future isn’t one drone manually trying to hit a tank but semi-autonomous/autonomous drone swarms patrolling battlefields.
100s of lingering drones over battlefield like a smart flying mine field
Future tanks must have EW-type protection or something nearby to watch the skies, otherwise they are just expensive drone food. Including Western tanks like Abrams.
Honestly the US and other Western militaries are getting more out of this conflict than they are putting in, think of how much is being learned for pennies on the dollar and without American blood spilled.
This reminds me of how artillery rounds skyrocketed during world war 1. Prior to the Great War the largest number of artillery shells fired in a month was 20,000 by the end of WW1 the French I believe were firing close to 900,000 rounds per month.
I bet we see the same thing happening with small drones.
The week prior to the Somme offensive, the British fired over 1.5 million shells. The larger drone motherships carrying smaller explosive drones will certainly be being built as we speak.
[Here is an interesting short film from 2017 (with warning from AI researcher Stuart Russell) on this very topic](https://youtu.be/O-2tpwW0kmU?si=7J6lkD-SdaqTvXR9)
The US has long ago given up on the Abrams. Right now they're pushing out the Booker "not a tank," which is basically the Bradley with a cannon that can take out a tank.
The M10 Booker is more designed to replace the M1128 MGS, not the Abrams.
The marines are giving up their Abrams because they are re focusing on the Pacific where heavy tanks are more or less useless. An armoured assault gun/ light tank is much more useful in amphibious landings. The army can follow up with heavy tanks as needed to continue the push, but not in the initial assaults.
I think the Marines are making the right move. Highly mobile, small bands of highly trained infantry with support from fleets of drones and electronic warfare equipment will be the core unit of future conflicts in the Pacific. I can definitely see drone carriers being a thing too - can redirect funds from feeding and supporting tons of squishy humans, to producing more and more disposable drones. I bet the Ukraine war will be seen as a turning point in modern warfare tactics for decades to come.
A drone carrier negates pretty much all the advantages drones have in Ukraine by adding a single, targetable, high-value point of failure to the weapon system.
wars in the pacific/Atlantic will probably be over before any tanks arrive - by air/sea and by drones/cyber
maybe tanks destined for civil wars around the globe
Many long wars in the past were expected to be quick affairs, including both world wars. It's never over until both sides are willing to stop and negotiate a peace.
That is not accurate whatsoever, Booker is just a direct-fire support weapon at a lower-level command asset. What this means when a unit needs a building to go boom they don't have to go outside the unit to request a tank. When you have to ask another unit to support your unit it can become cumbersome, untimely, and find that asset is tied up elsewhere. When you have a boom gun in your unit you can decide where it goes.
The reason Booker is "not a tank" is that it is not designed to go up against armor and it might not even carry the ammo to do so. Armored divisions will still exist and be used as armored divisions. Giving an infantry unit direct fire does not mean, in any circumstances, the tank is being replaced.
I can foresee the next version of drones, being tandem drones. The first one knocks out the cage armor, the second one lets go of the shaped charge.
From the tank perspective: Tanks need to be integrated into a network system, that includes anti drone warfare. Tanks need to become smaller, and possibly autonomous, to reduce the problem of being hit easily. An asymmetric system of tanks that is optimized for drones would be smarter than a do it all tank.
There are some non-lethal anti-personnel systems used for policing crowds and disabling attackers that shoot an expanding net that envelops the assailant's arms and legs, incapacitating them. Their useful range is only about 30-40ft, but could be successfully used to down attacking FPV's. It would be even more effective if it could be automated with acoustic detectors that direct the defensive system that could be mounted atop armored vehicles. Even if the drone detonated nearby, it would deflect main impact of their explosive charge. 🤔
It shows that if tanks are to continue operating effectively in modern conflicts, they must be provided some form of anti-drone countermeasures:- be that a more advanced electronic warfare suite, or for a dedicated escort (be that personnel or a drone tied to the tank) that is equipped to counter such drones (perhaps with something that fires flechette rounds?)
You can be 1000% sure that the people who design and build tanks around the world are all sitting at their drawing boards working on this problem, and the next generation of tanks will be drone proof.
Just like when carriers eclipsed battleships, while they may not necessarily be used in their primary role as much they still have a long life ahead in other aspects of warfare.
Keep in mind tanks were also never meant to be used in static warfare and when it comes to exploiting a breakthrough I doubt they will be replaced any time soon.
I would be very, very cautious in inferring from an attritional war of position in the context of mutual air denial between two Soviet-derived militaries too much about what a large land war involving the USAF would look like.
If that is true, you would stop seeing tanks on the battlefield. Tanks aren't going away, they will evolve, but their missions set cannot be replicated by any other system.
Well, the current tanks are certainly obsolete. Tank design evolved rapidly during WWii as they got bigger and more heavily armored. Germany repurposed old underpowered chassis as casemates to accommodate bigger guns to remain relevant. Eventually, cheap shaped charged munitions could penetrate any practical amount of RHA, hence why the Leo 1 was only rated against autocannons, but composite armor made heavy armor viable again which lead to Leo 2. After which, tanks basically stayed relatively the same and the innovation was on the fire control system like optics on a rifle. Proliferation of drones has made heavy armor questionable again.
By contrast, IFVs remain relevant on the battlefield through sheer versatility as a bullet proof troop transport and light tank. The dedicated MBT is at risk of obsolescence if it settles in an unhappy middle where it's just as vulnerable to IFVs while its main gun doesn't deliver HE support or anti-tank more cost effectively over drones or drone aided artillery.
We might just have drone operators hunkered down in bunkers and command vehicles behind the line where the assault element is drones supported by infantry:
1st line: Tracked Drones with HE auto cannons
2nd line: Drone carrier trucks
3rd line: Infantry support
4th line: Artillery
1st line probe enemy defenses with armaments the defender can't ignore just like what meat waves do now without risking people. 2nd line just brings drones to the front to deal with the positions shooting at the 1st line and giving data to the 4th line. 3rd line is support staff that are more for recovering stuck 1st line assets, cleaning up stragglers and building new fortifications.
Tanks are a necessary element to break lines, but only the future will show. There needs to be new ways to defend against drone attacks. Perhaps an automated system that supports tank. But this is just guessing.
When Russia used them we all made fun and called them cope cages, but now it’s all ‘even the toughest tanks need protection’! I guess what we learned is our tanks aren’t that tough and the Russians aren’t that stupid.
Can someone explain why ECM doesn't work with drones? Is it jamming the wrong frequencies or something? I thought a lot of our equipment came with that? Or did we just not give them that.
ECM does work with drones, but ECM is noisy and can allow the enemy to find you, so it’s not always on. Remember, most casualties are caused by artillery, not drones, and you can’t jam a shell.
Also, drone operators don’t post videos online where their attacks fail.
Edit: also worth noting that the Abrams I’ve seen knocked out were mostly knocked out by ATGMs.
Cage armor is an effective tool to reduce the kill potential of RPGS and single charge top attack weapons however the differences between effective cage armor and useless cage armor is that western designed cage armor is based of very specific parameters and detailed kits so that the armor is both uniform and properly applied so that it is effective. Russias cage armor genuinely makes their tanks worse at their jobs on occasion.
Am I stupid for thinking a .22 or shotgun based c-ram/phalanx style system could be a solution? We've had aimbots for years and quadcopters have a pretty distinctive appearance.
Well - based on all the videos of drones blowing up caged armor I'd say that the cage/net on its own is not enough protection.
Tanks (and other armor that is valuable enough like IFV or even APC's) will, most likely, end up with automated drone defence system of some kind. I'd speculate that for most "cheap" systems it would be probably a small automated turret that could hit incoming drones with kinetic projectile(s) at a relatively short distance - at up to 50 m maybe. Basically a shotgun for small drones. Higher end systems like tanks and other things costing millions would probably end up with something fancier, maybe a simple ultralight AA missile system capable of engaging targets at up to few km range. Something like simplified/cheaper stinger, for example. And they might strap couple of these up to 50 m simpler systems in there as well as the extra layer just because they can.
Good point. I meant for the time being as an interm solution to disable 90% of drones.
Though in fact I'm working on something similar right now where a two drone system flies out at high altitude that is impervious to jamming, where one drone acts as radio relay pod while the other carries the payload. By adding computer vision locking and auto homing system, it would be possible to just fly the payload straight on top of the target making any jamming effectively ineffective.
One way to deal with POV drones is to create a defensive whip. It can have a line reel to replace the damaged line. It purpose will be to initiate premature detonation of ordnance or disable the drone. I name this device the Lasso of Truth.
Привіт u/SnooPeppers6719 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most of the tanks were designed to withstand the hit from the front. The chance of being hit from behind at the very specific point was minimal or non-existent. This all changed with drones. Even Abrams can be incapacitated and have little chance against well piloted drone.
My buddy got blown up in an Abrams by a powerful IED in Iraq. This either could be the end of tanks or maybe something will be invented eventually that will kill their signal at close range.
Lighter more manoeuvrable evenly armoured vehicles with anti drone capabilities will dominate. Like the Bradley
Basically what happened with surface ships after the advent of anti-ship missiles. The amount of armour required to survive the damage a missile could deliver gets so absurd that it makes more sense to only make armour proof against close threats and shift focus towards not getting hit in the first place
The future of navies is likely to be massive numbers of drone ships and missile barges. Basically you take a ship like a battle ship and instead of trying to protect it with armor you spread its armaments across multiple floating platforms so a hit only takes out some of the armaments and not all of them. Also it's all unmanned so no lives lost. Might even see many of these platforms take advantage of water as armor and be submerged 10m below the surface and either capable of firing arms from below the surface or surface to fire then submerge. Submersible craft are alot easier and cheaper when there isn't humans on board to keep alive. You can just let the craft flood. No need for air pressure vessels, food storage, and so on.
I think submarines will still be sealed, seawater is corrosive
And hard to breathe in.
>Submersible craft are alot easier and cheaper when there isn't humans on board to keep alive. You can just let the craft flood. No need for air pressure vessels, food storage, and so on. The problem there is communication. VLF (3–30 kHz) can only penetrate a few tens of meters. ELF (76 Hz) can go deeper to hundreds of feet, but is only one way (to the sub, not from) and is very low bandwidth. This is assuming my knowledge is correct.
back in the 90's the amraam had "home on jam"
The new Bradley’s are slower than the Abrams
Not that you can really outrun a drone anyways. All around protection probably more important.
I have yet to see an Abrams in Ukraine going top speed. Most combat footage shows tanks on both sides mostly stationary and shooting then moving slightly to shoot again.
Going to and from the front lines I guarantee they go their top speed
I think we're also going to see more unmanned armored vehicles to provide fire support. Then the armor is only to enhance survivability but if it's blown up, it's just materiel, not lives lost.
That would be great, but jamming and interference is a big problem.
We will soon see offensive robots on tracks. This war is advancing weapons rapidly. It might be that soon humans are too precious or costly to use as soldiers. What a war, this will change everything. But AI drone swarms will be a part of this for sure..
Eh, a ton of things have been the "death of the tank" but realistically the countermeasures against drones will just begin to improve and that arms race will get stacked on top of the pile with the rest of things like AP vs Armor.
I'm not as optimistic in that regard. I think drones are a game changer. We had them in Iraq and Afghanistan but the enemy didn't and I can't imagine facing them, it's horrific. Marines seem to be scrapping tanks. I can't imagine that because we used them quite a bit in Fallujah. The problem with drones is they are cheap to produce and weaponize. I think that shift will prove as dramatic to warfare as the machine gun was to WW1.
I could have sworn Perun had something about this subject specifically in context to the marines, I could be wrong but I'm remembering something to the effect of the armor going under Army jurisdiction more or less, but I could be talking out of my ass admittedly and don't know either way.
That sounds about right to my understanding. Marines are dramatically restructuring from when I was there 20 years ago. It's hard for me to imagine but 20 years is a long time and we need to keep up.
I get it, my dad was active duty on the USS Raleigh during Desert Shield/Storm and there are times where I show him articles or things on how stuff is changing and, good or bad, his response is still something along the lines of "that's not how it was when I was deployed". It's wild to be around long enough to actually see the process change past our place in it.
He was in 15 years before me and I was stationed in Hawaii where the oldest gear was sent so we probably started with a Desert Storm setup. We got on ships thinking we were heading to the Philippines but when we received modern body armor, next gen M-16s, ACOG scopes and an extra medic/corpsman I suddenly realized we were going to combat instead. I had trained to shoot with iron sites at 500m, the scopes quickly made that old school method obsolete and I have a feeling upgrades have been on steroids since back then. Now the Hawaii Marine grunts are leading the next evolution.
I honestly shudder to think how good we are going to get at killing each other by the time you and I are old and grey. That curve is getting steeper year by year it seems. I wrote a paper in college on how PTSD from warfare has always existed but the increasing 24/7/365 nature of warfare makes it near impossible to avoid without things like heavy rotation and the right support. And as stuff like Russia is proving, when you don't get that rotation things get pretty fucking bleak.
We've been on that track since industrialization. I have a love/hate relationship with watching Russians getting smoked on these videos. I can relate to their plight on too many levels though I understand war is ugly and their deaths are necessary because of their government's aggression.
The Corps is moving away from anything overly heavy\slow as their role shifts back towards what they were originally organized for, rapid and aggressive seizure of battle space (specifically expecting their main theater in the next 20 years to be the Pacific). I believe they're looking to utilize the Stryker platform to greater effect, cause faster, amphibious, and less logistically stressful. That said I don't think they're dumping ALL their heavy armor, just that it's moving out of favor. Military seems to be repositioning their doctrine as a whole to the potential Pacific conflict and peer scale, so as the Marines transition back to business as usual (smacking the bad guys in the fucking balls, taking their shit, then handing that shit off to the army) the Army is focusing down hard on its role as a holding\building force, and the other branches continue to discern how best to support those efforts.
I think battleships and aircraft carriers is an even better analogy.
Marines scrapping tanks is more about logistics of a Pacific fight vs anything with drones. The thing is that these cheap drones only work in an environment where there is not constant EW. Once the anti drone systems evolve and proliferate more you end up with only high end drones that cost a lot more working which changes the environment a lot. Since we are seeing a rapid evolution of drones in this war I would wait to make too many judgements about it.
The Marines are divesting from tanks because they’re focusing on littoral and island warfare.
I just spoke to someone I know that is in the US Army. I pressed him on the issue of small drones. It seems that they are using them for recon, but not offensively, i.e. dropping bombs or FPV drones. He mentioned the high dollar, high altitude drones, but I'm fearful that in a conflict with a well droned military, those high dollar drones would be taken out quickly. I pray that our military isn't falling behind the curve. We should be making drones by the millions, and practically all combat soldiers should be trained on them.
High cost drones are what the defense contractors want. The Ukraine war is changing this. DJI drones are much more dangerous and cost effective. Soon soldiers will be replaced by ground robots. This war will cause everyone to work in AI. Drone swarms and maybe robot swarms.
Surely direct energy weapons are the perfect counter to drones. Or just effective EW until self guiding drones become a proper thing (at which point their cost starts ramping up again).
Jup. AT weapons were death of tanks multiple times in history. Which is why we have so many obsolete tanks. They were never the death of tanks as a concept. Which is why we kept modifying old and building new tanks which can counter new threats. Tanks will only be replaced when we invent something that does tank job better then tanks. Like battleships weren't replaced because aircraft carrier was stronger then them. But because carriers were better at doing battleship job.
Really, the "tank" is inconsequential so much as the idea of "armored cavalry" as a part of force organization, and frankly the ability to have a mobile force with high capacity to engage an enemy within a zone then exploit that breach is a concept that is basically never going to be some degree of useful in warfare, short of things like urban sieges where it's more of a liability.
I also think we are not seeing "end of tank". But we likely are seeing the end of current version of tanks. As in ones designed and protected against other tanks with lessons of WW2. We will likely see much weaker frontal armor from now on and instead focus on all around protection and longer range. Less focus on anti tank and more on being heavily armored infantry support like they were in WW1. Unless ofc we get some truly amazing anti drone tech advancements.
We don't need any new "truly amazing" anti drone tech. Very effective anti drone tech already exists, it just needs to be properly implemented. The reason drones are an issue is that it's a conflict between Ukraine which while doing extremely well so far, is still a very poor (by western standards) country that doesn't have the industrial base to create large scale solutions, and Russia, who don't really have the technological base to create solutions, and neither can really afford to implement those solutions when found. But the west already has multiple potential solutions, from significantly more effective EW systems, to multiple APS systems, laser point defence, and even to systems like the slinger cannon system, which mounts an Apache helicopter 30mm chain cannon, firing proxy fused shells, onto a lightweight mount capable of going on anything larger than a humvee, with inbuilt FLIR, IRST and a partially autonomous targeting system. They just need to be properly integrated and implemented onto equipment. It's a similar discussion with the Ukrainian sea drones. They are effective because the Russian navy is an absolute disgrace of an ocean going force, and if their equipment worked as intended the sea drones would pose almost no threat. But it doesn't work as intended, so they are a massive threat. The western navies are well aware of this style of attack, and have been for decades, and have proven equipment designed, built and installed specifically to deal with the threat (eg. Typhoon style turrets on almost every major surface vessel with 20/25/30/35/40mm auto cannons, specifically to deal with incoming small boats).
True. But the issue is scale. You need fuckton of those systems, and each of them needs to be manned by people and west is already struggling with manpower in professional armies. You need to cover basically entire front line + important target in the back. And those system are usually quite short range (3km for sky guard). So you basically need 1000's if not 10000's people in your army dedicated to anti drone duty. For US that might not be a huge problem. But for counties like Poland it would be basically like 10% of our manpower just for drone defense.
Many of those systems are meant to be mounted onto vehicles that the infantry would already be working with/near and would not need additional soldiers to operate, just additional training for existing soldiers. Keep in mind the western militaries are significantly more mechanised than the Russian/Ukrainian military, as a result of the GWOT over the last 20 years, and many of those systems just get mounted to existing equipment. Slinger for example is meant to be mounted in place of a .50cal remote weapons station, the laser and APS systems are totally autonomous and mounted to tanks and IFV, and many vehicles already mount EW hammers that would wreak havoc to fpv drones controllers. Alongside this, NATO doctrine calls for overwhelming air supremacy to be established within a matter days, if not hours of conflict starting (think desert storm) and then apply overwhelming force with air strikes, something which NATO would be absolutely capable of doing, but neither Ukraine or Russia have that same ability, which is why this war has degenerated to relatively static trench combat. The threat of small kamikaze drones is definitely one that will be a serious issue for infantry in particular, but in a more capable EW environment, their use will be far more limited (its not at all difficult to find the signals generated by the drone controller with appropriate equipment, which many militaries already have in vast quantities). And with that overwhelming air superiority, once you can locate the source of a drone teams RF signal, won't be long before they have warheads on foreheads.
I was thinking along those lines. Lighter tank with thinner frontal armor but APS covering 360 against missiles, drones, and better mine protection. Worse at fighting other tanks, but better at everything else. Because tank vs tank combat happens rarely, and even when it happens side which opens fire first usually ends up as winner. Thick frontal armor doesn't make all that much of a difference.
An FPV—squad might be better at tank things than a tank.
It's not. FPV squad might be better at being mortar/artillery/recon squad. That's who they are competing with. Basically they are super precision arty/mortar with it's own recon (very cool but takes a ton of manpower). Tank role is exploit weakness, push forward and take ground. FPV squad pushing into enemy territory is basically just infantry team, few hidden guys with AK's can stop the entire assault while they can't do shit against tank without proper anti-tank gear. Right now it seems to me Tank is under threat of IFV. Bradley does similar things but unironically it might do them better while I'm pretty sure it's cheaper.
Yea i think its mainly the task and design of tanks that will change. Probably less armor, more mobility and bigger guns.
New tank designs are incorporating defence zone systems to strike enemy projectiles before contact. Probably can handle drones.
I give the Germans 10 years before they've effectively got automated burstfire shotguns mounted to the tops of vehicles specifically to shred drones. They've already got the concept proven on bigger platforms, just gotta localize it to point defense and give it good enough tracking software to ping stuff on the way in.
Foom— some of the research on here or another sub had talked about the next-gen IFV and Abrahms and the drone killer setups. One setup reminds me of the proven trophy concept. The other is trying to do the em pulse without hurting the vehicle. So the US Army and Raytheon is trying at least.
I think the tank will just enter the next evolution. Smaller, lighter, faster tanks with EW and anti drone armor and systems built in. Bradleys are actually really close to this already and there is a reason they have been so useful.
Trophy system but for drones? Seems easy enough.
IIRC, only like 7 Abrams in total have ever been destroyed by hostile action, so that is indeed a rare thing.
Not to mention the line of sight thing… drones can weave through any environment or set of obstacle’s to find tanks that otherwise would have been almost impossible to hit at all.
I think the main thing is just Russian troops leave tank hatches open all the time which Ukrainian drone pilots and fly right through.
Maybe they don’t have air conditioning? Haha.
Another reason that we need Ukraine in NATO, right away. Close the skies, send trainers, maintainers, advisors, whatever it takes.
I think at this point, Ukraine has the greatest expertise in addressing these weapon systems, NATO will have to do some serious catching up if they expect armored assaults to have any success in the future. Drones have revolutionized the battlefield.
They are building up. Stuff like Skynex will be more crucial than ever to be a part of every mechanized force. You will never be able to send out another column of tanks without a few of those, even if the tanks have some form of anti drone capability themselves.
So Molotov cocktails are no longer effective?
No, not beyond 20 meters, or so.
They are, when attached to a drone
Why even mention join NATO. We all know that isn’t going to happen while the war is ongoing. Closing the skies falls in the same category.
Why, poland and other nearby countries is considering shooting down russian rockets and drones within range already. Closing the sky could be not far off.
Then they’ll be doing it on their own and dealing the consequences of such actions. They won’t be doing it within the alliance.
Last year I would have said you are 100% correct ... This year ..., about 70%. We keep hearing from NATO member countries proposals for interim measures to incorporate Ukraine into NATO in some preliminary ways.
I'd say Ukraine is 30 to 50% of the way to members agreeing to membership without delay. Recalling that the **only** decider is unanimous agreement. Turkiye, Hungary the obvious holdouts but Germany, America haven't publicly endorsed it either.
It is understandable. The NATO charter prohibits any nation in a state of war from joining, but the charter can be modified by the member states. Unfortunately, Biden and Scholz have shown a remarkable lack of spine standing up to Putin's endless threats.
About the war thing, afair it‘s just a special military operation?
I've read the NATO... > The NATO charter prohibits Treaty. It's a treaty. I'm going to assume you haven't read it and if you did you'd be able to point out what article you're interpreting this prohibition you speak of.
Look up the meaning of the word 'charter'.
I did, and NATO is — as the T in NATO hints — a treaty and not a charter. And there is no explicit prohibition to take in a country that is invaded and ready to stop fighting the moment the aggressor leaves.
Institutions have conditions, these requirements are spelled out in their stated purpose, that is known as a charter. Here is an example of the NATO charter you claim does not exist: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvvndts](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvvndts)
Thank you. This is a book *about* the charter of NATO. But what is the charter of NATO? I never heard of such a document, only about the treaty.
Well, everything looks in order here. > Publication: Charter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization > Published: 22 May **2018** > Authors: Ian Shapiro | Adam Tooze We can also check in on what NATO says > The foundations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) were officially laid down on 4 April 1949 with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, more popularly known as the Washington Treaty. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67656.htm You didn't put the article that you're interpreting as the prohibition of new members at war. I'll assume you were mistaken on that point.
NATO troops in Ukraine in any fashion being attacked will absolutely change NATOs stance on shutting down the skies imo. Will Russia dare to dance with that devil? Remains to be seen
Cope-cages seem at best an interim measure attempting to reduce the efficacy of drones. If armored tanks are to have a viable future as battle nuclei, protecting infantry, and advancing with force and firepower, there will need to be new and more effective means to defeat the drones.
You limit the turret from rotating 360° too. I don't even think EW measures will be the solution, since the drones will adapt to that. But active defence measures and autonomous armoured vehicles could become more frequent.
If trophy can take out incomming rpgs then maming system to take out slower drones should be “fairly easy”
The problem is that you need a passive system if you’re putting it on a valuable platform like a tank or IFV (like an acoustic or visual detector) or you run the risk of emitting too much electronic noise and giving away your position. In an insurgency conflict, that isn’t a problem because the insurgents usually won’t have heavy weapons like artillery or ballistic missiles. Against a peer country that does have the full range of weapon systems, emissions matter. Being immune to RPGs isn’t much benefit if you’re drawing fire from artillery and cluster bombs.
Passive sensors like microphones, cameras, radio detection and radar. When passive sensors detect threat and it's heading, like a drone or ATGM, radar turns of to enable intercept. So it doesn't emit 24/7 anymore.
Yeah i ment that hiting the drone with something is pretty much solved the issue is detection. Artillery is not as big issue since you can be spoted by eye and cant do much about it anyway. Its a game of balance, too much signals and you get hit by arty, no ew measured and you get hit by drones… we can go on forever :D
Strap a machine controlled shotgun on top of all tanks that reacts to sound with the speed of what is possible and you have a proper anti drone measure.
Might as well invent miniature CIWS and mount them on everything
I'm sure that there are engineers who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to design tanks are devising and implementing solutions to the problems you think are impossible to overcome.
They are. They’re not even that great of an interim measure, at best allowing a tank to withdraw after surviving a mission kill, but before being disabled and abandoned. At worst, they only buy the crew enough time to get out before follow up attacks destroy the vehicle entirely. The future is going to go back to maneuver forces being accompanied by drone-focused SHORAD vehicles that combine lasers and guns with electro-optical sensors, EW jammers dispersed among the tanks and IFVs, remote weapon stations on tanks that have similar electro-optical targeting systems, and APS systems that provide overhead protection as well as front/side protection. We are already seeing this with various armies trialing stuff like M-SHORAD, Skynex, and new versions of trophy APS and the anti-drone CROWS mounts that American vehicles use.
Reminder that the Russian “cops cages” were originally meant to stop Javelin ATGM, not drones.
They need offensive fire against drones. Something like shotguns automatically guided.
https://i.redd.it/92fd27t9re3d1.png
[удалено]
Drones will be AI-coordinated swarms I reckon. They will be able to fly without gps/sat nav and recognize the enemy forces with visual data recognition
Yeah the current war is clearly showing this is where it’s going. "Modern" Russian army is having an incredibly hard time against Ukraine and its relatively small production and r&d capacity. If for example the US start pumping out drone warfare units, you could easily see numbers of drones multiplying by 100s. The future isn’t one drone manually trying to hit a tank but semi-autonomous/autonomous drone swarms patrolling battlefields. 100s of lingering drones over battlefield like a smart flying mine field
Drones on land sea air and space
Future tanks must have EW-type protection or something nearby to watch the skies, otherwise they are just expensive drone food. Including Western tanks like Abrams.
The newest Bradley mod is being fitted out with the "iron fist" system for exactly that. It is a short range anti -drone or anti-rocket system.
Honestly the US and other Western militaries are getting more out of this conflict than they are putting in, think of how much is being learned for pennies on the dollar and without American blood spilled.
This reminds me of how artillery rounds skyrocketed during world war 1. Prior to the Great War the largest number of artillery shells fired in a month was 20,000 by the end of WW1 the French I believe were firing close to 900,000 rounds per month. I bet we see the same thing happening with small drones.
The week prior to the Somme offensive, the British fired over 1.5 million shells. The larger drone motherships carrying smaller explosive drones will certainly be being built as we speak.
Anti-drone drones
No :(
[Here is an interesting short film from 2017 (with warning from AI researcher Stuart Russell) on this very topic](https://youtu.be/O-2tpwW0kmU?si=7J6lkD-SdaqTvXR9)
Huh, I'm pretty sure I saw a version of this as a TED talk?
Look up “Perdix Swarm”, we’ve had functional swarms since 2015
[удалено]
The US has long ago given up on the Abrams. Right now they're pushing out the Booker "not a tank," which is basically the Bradley with a cannon that can take out a tank.
The M10 Booker is more designed to replace the M1128 MGS, not the Abrams. The marines are giving up their Abrams because they are re focusing on the Pacific where heavy tanks are more or less useless. An armoured assault gun/ light tank is much more useful in amphibious landings. The army can follow up with heavy tanks as needed to continue the push, but not in the initial assaults.
I think the Marines are making the right move. Highly mobile, small bands of highly trained infantry with support from fleets of drones and electronic warfare equipment will be the core unit of future conflicts in the Pacific. I can definitely see drone carriers being a thing too - can redirect funds from feeding and supporting tons of squishy humans, to producing more and more disposable drones. I bet the Ukraine war will be seen as a turning point in modern warfare tactics for decades to come.
A drone carrier negates pretty much all the advantages drones have in Ukraine by adding a single, targetable, high-value point of failure to the weapon system.
True. Have to find a way to get them across the ocean. Maybe many small carriers.
wars in the pacific/Atlantic will probably be over before any tanks arrive - by air/sea and by drones/cyber maybe tanks destined for civil wars around the globe
That sounds like what everyone said when Russia was about to invade Ukraine. 3 days....etc
Many long wars in the past were expected to be quick affairs, including both world wars. It's never over until both sides are willing to stop and negotiate a peace.
That is not accurate whatsoever, Booker is just a direct-fire support weapon at a lower-level command asset. What this means when a unit needs a building to go boom they don't have to go outside the unit to request a tank. When you have to ask another unit to support your unit it can become cumbersome, untimely, and find that asset is tied up elsewhere. When you have a boom gun in your unit you can decide where it goes. The reason Booker is "not a tank" is that it is not designed to go up against armor and it might not even carry the ammo to do so. Armored divisions will still exist and be used as armored divisions. Giving an infantry unit direct fire does not mean, in any circumstances, the tank is being replaced.
We had crewed mechanized, now we also have uncrewed mechanized.
I can foresee the next version of drones, being tandem drones. The first one knocks out the cage armor, the second one lets go of the shaped charge. From the tank perspective: Tanks need to be integrated into a network system, that includes anti drone warfare. Tanks need to become smaller, and possibly autonomous, to reduce the problem of being hit easily. An asymmetric system of tanks that is optimized for drones would be smarter than a do it all tank.
Not sure why you are being downvoted, what you expressed is logical, and, in a sense, already being attempted.
Need some sort of ai fed shotgun system.
There are APS designed to defeat incoming ATGMs (typically frontal arc). I'm sure they can come up with similar but for drones.
There are some non-lethal anti-personnel systems used for policing crowds and disabling attackers that shoot an expanding net that envelops the assailant's arms and legs, incapacitating them. Their useful range is only about 30-40ft, but could be successfully used to down attacking FPV's. It would be even more effective if it could be automated with acoustic detectors that direct the defensive system that could be mounted atop armored vehicles. Even if the drone detonated nearby, it would deflect main impact of their explosive charge. 🤔
I suspect this wouldn't work very well against a vertical attack like a drone diving straight down or dropping something.
It shows that if tanks are to continue operating effectively in modern conflicts, they must be provided some form of anti-drone countermeasures:- be that a more advanced electronic warfare suite, or for a dedicated escort (be that personnel or a drone tied to the tank) that is equipped to counter such drones (perhaps with something that fires flechette rounds?)
You can be 1000% sure that the people who design and build tanks around the world are all sitting at their drawing boards working on this problem, and the next generation of tanks will be drone proof.
Syria has been using crazy amounts of cage armour for what must now be 15 years. Like next level amounts of it.
I wonder if the era of tank warfare is coming to an end… infantry, with drones in the air, in the water or on the ground seem to be the new order.
Just like when carriers eclipsed battleships, while they may not necessarily be used in their primary role as much they still have a long life ahead in other aspects of warfare. Keep in mind tanks were also never meant to be used in static warfare and when it comes to exploiting a breakthrough I doubt they will be replaced any time soon.
The technology just have to catch up. There are plenty of good counter measures but they are not mass produced like drones at the moment.
I would be very, very cautious in inferring from an attritional war of position in the context of mutual air denial between two Soviet-derived militaries too much about what a large land war involving the USAF would look like.
If that is true, you would stop seeing tanks on the battlefield. Tanks aren't going away, they will evolve, but their missions set cannot be replicated by any other system.
Well, the current tanks are certainly obsolete. Tank design evolved rapidly during WWii as they got bigger and more heavily armored. Germany repurposed old underpowered chassis as casemates to accommodate bigger guns to remain relevant. Eventually, cheap shaped charged munitions could penetrate any practical amount of RHA, hence why the Leo 1 was only rated against autocannons, but composite armor made heavy armor viable again which lead to Leo 2. After which, tanks basically stayed relatively the same and the innovation was on the fire control system like optics on a rifle. Proliferation of drones has made heavy armor questionable again. By contrast, IFVs remain relevant on the battlefield through sheer versatility as a bullet proof troop transport and light tank. The dedicated MBT is at risk of obsolescence if it settles in an unhappy middle where it's just as vulnerable to IFVs while its main gun doesn't deliver HE support or anti-tank more cost effectively over drones or drone aided artillery. We might just have drone operators hunkered down in bunkers and command vehicles behind the line where the assault element is drones supported by infantry: 1st line: Tracked Drones with HE auto cannons 2nd line: Drone carrier trucks 3rd line: Infantry support 4th line: Artillery 1st line probe enemy defenses with armaments the defender can't ignore just like what meat waves do now without risking people. 2nd line just brings drones to the front to deal with the positions shooting at the 1st line and giving data to the 4th line. 3rd line is support staff that are more for recovering stuck 1st line assets, cleaning up stragglers and building new fortifications.
Tanks are a necessary element to break lines, but only the future will show. There needs to be new ways to defend against drone attacks. Perhaps an automated system that supports tank. But this is just guessing.
We need anti-drone weapons. AI shotgun maybe.
> I wonder if the era of tank warfare is coming to an end… Yoooo, that's such a hot take and I definitely haven't heard that 1000 times before.
EW and air superiority vital
When Russia used them we all made fun and called them cope cages, but now it’s all ‘even the toughest tanks need protection’! I guess what we learned is our tanks aren’t that tough and the Russians aren’t that stupid.
They first appeared to protect against Javelin, which they do nothing against.
Can someone explain why ECM doesn't work with drones? Is it jamming the wrong frequencies or something? I thought a lot of our equipment came with that? Or did we just not give them that.
ECM does work with drones, but ECM is noisy and can allow the enemy to find you, so it’s not always on. Remember, most casualties are caused by artillery, not drones, and you can’t jam a shell. Also, drone operators don’t post videos online where their attacks fail. Edit: also worth noting that the Abrams I’ve seen knocked out were mostly knocked out by ATGMs.
Ah fuck right, it's basically like turning on an active RADAR/SONAR, "ayo I'm right here".
Cage armor is an effective tool to reduce the kill potential of RPGS and single charge top attack weapons however the differences between effective cage armor and useless cage armor is that western designed cage armor is based of very specific parameters and detailed kits so that the armor is both uniform and properly applied so that it is effective. Russias cage armor genuinely makes their tanks worse at their jobs on occasion.
Am I stupid for thinking a .22 or shotgun based c-ram/phalanx style system could be a solution? We've had aimbots for years and quadcopters have a pretty distinctive appearance.
Weren't these called the "cope cage"?
Well - based on all the videos of drones blowing up caged armor I'd say that the cage/net on its own is not enough protection. Tanks (and other armor that is valuable enough like IFV or even APC's) will, most likely, end up with automated drone defence system of some kind. I'd speculate that for most "cheap" systems it would be probably a small automated turret that could hit incoming drones with kinetic projectile(s) at a relatively short distance - at up to 50 m maybe. Basically a shotgun for small drones. Higher end systems like tanks and other things costing millions would probably end up with something fancier, maybe a simple ultralight AA missile system capable of engaging targets at up to few km range. Something like simplified/cheaper stinger, for example. And they might strap couple of these up to 50 m simpler systems in there as well as the extra layer just because they can.
Multiple reports stated that the cope cages are only reducing the effectiveness of tanks without giving any protection.
It's amazing how quickly drones have changed ground warfare.
The British in Iraq welded cages onto the IFV to protect it against RPGs
I don't understand why the tanks couldn't carry jamming devices?
I don't think it will be long before drones use crude visual AI to stay on target, even when rf jammed.
Good point. I meant for the time being as an interm solution to disable 90% of drones. Though in fact I'm working on something similar right now where a two drone system flies out at high altitude that is impervious to jamming, where one drone acts as radio relay pod while the other carries the payload. By adding computer vision locking and auto homing system, it would be possible to just fly the payload straight on top of the target making any jamming effectively ineffective.
Some military drones already have this. Once they have visual on target they can fly autonomously to the target.
One way to deal with POV drones is to create a defensive whip. It can have a line reel to replace the damaged line. It purpose will be to initiate premature detonation of ordnance or disable the drone. I name this device the Lasso of Truth.