"Drones have not made Tanks obsolete..." Topic

You were asked – TMP link

Have battlefield drones made tanks obsolete?

82% said "no, drones have not made tanks obsolete"
7% said "yes, drones have made tanks obsolete"

Depends upon the drone. Little 'eyes in the sky' w/o
comm links other than video OK. Bigger drones with
Hellfire missiles bad news.

There seems to be an accelerated interest in drone defense, which will of course lead to advances in drone technology to penetrate the defenses. It could get to the point where you need three or four drones per mission with at least two of them being sacrificed to penetrate defenses, then the surviving one or two to complete the mission. Also, from the articles I've read it seems that the U.S. has been working on a number of anti-drone defenses, but little is known about them.

Not obsolete, maybe easier to find.
Now, when we can mount an anti-tank gun on a quad-copter, then we'll be on to something.

The Azerbaijan v Armenia conflict over Nogorno-Karabakh certainly demonstrated that when one side has a significant advantage over the other in that technology, armor is highly vulnerable.

No … not obsolete, but like any new tech on the battlefield. Tactics, etc., will change …

I'd have thought wire guided missiles did that 25 years ago.

The Azerbaijan v Armenia conflict over Nogorno-Karabakh certainly demonstrated that when one side has a significant advantage over the other in that technology, armor is highly vulnerable.

Everything Armenian was vulnerable in that war including troops in supposedly hidden bunkers, artillery, the Nagorno-Karabakh defence minister, as well as advanced air defence and electronic warfare systems that were meant to fight drones!

Literally the drones/loitering munitions/artillery combo totally neutralised Armenia's advantage in terrain, defensive positions, troop quality etc. Armenia had a large IADS of which many richer western states could only dream of, yet it was destroyed without issue.

And to prove it wasn't a fluke or one of, the Turks repeated the same performance in Syria in 2019 and Libya.

The new Israeli/Turkish paradigm revolutionises warfare because it allows even poorer countries or non-state actors to deploy accurate well coordinated yet extremely cheap firepower delivered via cheap expendable platforms.

And air defences and EW are so far behind the 8-ball. The latest Russians systems are more modern and advanced than most equivalent western systems yet were trashed by expendable Bayraktar's and loitering munitions.

Not clued in but guessing!
Maybe already here or in development?
Vehicles capable of housing small drone 'swarms'. Armoured for survival. Cross country capability. Weaponry to defend against infantry… or other drone launch vehicles… or 'other threats'.
What have you got?

Could also have AA… or Anti Drone… variants to detect / destroy Large Drones… or protected ECM vehicles.
Remember, also, that possible combat areas 'could' be in an NBC environment… a horrible, but effective 'counter' to 'unprotected' operators.

Think 'Tanks' in some sort of form, may be around for a while.

protected ECM vehicles.

Given current tech as well as nature of offensive aerial warfare the drones have the advantage. Armenia ironically lost dedicated anti-drone ECM Repellent vehicles to Azeri drones.

One of the big lessons from Armenia was you need an awful lot of concentrated defensive layers to stop drones. And there's the rub – the amount of resources you need to defend against cheap expendable attackers.

Azeris had other tricks too:

1. Using An-2 biplanes converted to drones as decoys.

2. Using Israeli supplied partially guided Lora ballistic missiles. Due to trajectories these bypass conventional air defences.

3. Really close cooperation between drones, loitering munitions (kamikaze drones) and conventional artillery.

4. Sophisticated air defence network to limit Armenian fixed wing offensive capabilities (Armenians did the same to counter Azeri air force).

A drone bypasses most of the air defences. Too small and too slow to be intercepted by the long range systems like Patriot or S300 or medium range systems like Buk, but too small and high to be detected and targeted by dedicated low altitude systems like Pantsir or Avenger or Tor.

Best solution for countering cheap conventional drones like Bayraktar is destroying the airfields they operate from.

Truck mounted loitering munitions and drones are another thing entirely.

'd have thought wire guided missiles did that 25 years ago.

That didn't happen but again tactics changed. Again being an M113 Mech Cdr frequently attached to a Tank Bn[ M60s & M1IPs] … We learned what to do … from the past, e.g. WWII, i.e Blitzkrieg, Combined Arms/Air-Land Battle Doctrine …

Think 'Tanks' in some sort of form, may be around for a while.

Yes, AFVs, MBTS, etc., very much so … AT guns/weapons didn't make Tanks obsolete. Anymore than metal cartridges, MGs, automatic weapons, breach loading FA, etc., made Infantry obsolete.

Again you adapt and evolve based on weapons' tech development, etc.,. It has been that way especially during/after the ACW, etc., on … IMO. Then of course WWI …

It is generally always is a cycle : measure … countermeasure … counter-countermeasure… repeat …

Though it may be very dated, the Chadians gave Kadafi's tanks a hard beating with pickup trucks and daggers. They just parked on reverse slopes (which neither missile nor cannon can penetrate) and used their wire guides to take out the tanks (T-55s? T-72s?).

I don't know how you beat that. Happy to be proven wrong, but it seems like a pretty unbeatable combination given today's tech.

Gorgrat, the Libyans were also inept and didn't use any kind of reconnaissance. You could have had Pak 40s and the result would have been the same. Tanks were T-55s.

Libyans soldiers often panicked and ran at the first sight of opposition.

Libyans didn't even practice any kind of real defensive preparations at airbases and two were overrun with ease including one in actual Libya that was such a massive defeat that France had to reel Chadians in in fear of them launching an invasion of Libya.

Even when the Libyans converted to manoeuvrable wheeled forces they only won 1 encounter and lost all the rest.

Gaddafhis army was the epitome of incompetence.

Libya's various military forces and militias are still garbage – hence the reliance of foreign mercenaries by both sides.

There's literally up to 18,000 Syrians, 2,000 Russians, hundreds to thousands of Sudanese as well as westerners fighting in Libya.

Gaddafhi himself new Libyans made poor fighters so relied on Tuaregs and other sub Saharan Africans to provide key combat capabilities.

----

As for tanks still useful even with drones – Azerbaijan, Israel and Turkey still use them despite the drones. Combined arms still means you don't just rely on one system.

And drones still can't be everywhere.

Combined arms still means you don't just rely on one system.

And drones still can't be everywhere.

So very true … the drone is/will be part of the combined arms team. E.g. Infantry, Armor, FA, Gunships, CAS & now drones.

Yes, some in the USA didn't understand that drones can't be everywhere. Regardless they said Drones could control our South Border. And don't need an obstacle like a very tall wall. They missed a few facts. The wall channelizes the illegal aliens where the BCP, etc. can more easily confront them.

Drone are and would be useful in showing where the illegals are. Then the BCP, LEOs, etc. can intercept them. But drones alone can't hold ground. Or physically stop the illegals. Unless they were armed but that would certainly be a crime to shot & kill unarmed civilians. The Wall & drones and other systems again working together in combination would be a good mix/tactic. To get some positive control over a wide open border.