Why are tanks still used in battlefield if they can easily be destroyed by drones?
In: Other
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has sent military strategists scrambling because Ukraine has shown how drones have drastically changed tactics. Tanks are still useful, but drones have re-written attack plans.
Why are infantry still deployed if a tank can obliterate a person on foot?
Drones look like the way of the future on the open plains of Ukraine, but they’re much less suited to striking in dense urban areas. Urban areas are where most modern fighting happens.
Talking strategy rather than tactics, though, most military deployments of tanks in the 21st century have been wealthy powers (usually the US, but also Russia and Israel) fighting against much poorer countries, usually fighting irregular guerillas rather than a standing army. Poor irregular guerillas have no historically had access to drones that can take out modern tanks. That’s starting to change, obviously.
Again, Ukraine is a rare instance where drones are able to be fielded in large numbers against tanks. Maybe we’ll look back on drones in this war like the Monitor vs. Merrimack was for iron ships.
Just because a system can be killed doesn’t make it obsolete. Otherwise infantry would have been made obsolete by the invention of the rock.
What matters is whether something can do the job BETTER than the system you have. And right now, nothing can do the job of a tank – highly mobile, protected, heavy direct fire – better than a tank.
Also, don’t forget, you only see videos of the drone strikes that succeed, not all the ones that fail.
1. They’re equipped with a big stabilized gun that can be fired on the move.
2. They’re still very resistant to all sorts of threats (including drones). Like 30mm autocannons and artillery (unless there is a direct hit or at least a very close hit).
3. Your perspective is probably quite skewed. Nobody is going to upload a video of how they failed to take out an enemy vehicle. Likewise successful FPV drone strikes are over-represented in media because the nature of their guidance system means that most successful strikes are recorded.
Why does infantry still exist if they can be destroyed by drones? Because they have a role and the powers that be see that they’re still cost effective.
The role of a tank is:
* to add direct fire support to nearby forces while being able to take enemy fire
* exploit gaps in the enemy line and start maneuvering
Obviously, with things static in Ukraine that second point isn’t as filled. But having a 105mm, 115mm, 120mm or 125mm gun is a great force multiplier for infantry. And just because tanks are vulnerable to a new weapon doesn’t mean they’re obsolete. ATGMs became common in the 1960s and 1970s and showed their worth in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Yet tanks still existed despite these weapons becoming even more deadly. For every weapon there’s a way to get around it (different tactics, different types of protection on the tank, different support units, etc).
Because sometimes getting a 120mm mobile support weapon with an attached weapon system and decent sensors can change a battle.
Drones aren’t a “kill button”.
Tanks can still survive multiple drone hits, and with proper caging and EW jammers, they can survive a dozen of drones thrown at them.
Tanks are still the most armored mobile gun you have on the battlefield.
Because tanks have a role: heavy guns protected by heavy armor. And those heavy guns can be fired on all sorts of targets. And don’t be surprised when tanks start showing up with anti missiles/drone/mortar/ artillery defense in the form of laser defense. Military weapons are always trying to defeat the latest improvement.
https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not-a-tank/
Tanks have *NOT* been “used on the battlefield” in any great number in the 21st century in actual combat.
America has deployed tanks in the Middle East and has completely controlled the airspace and made short work of Saddams army and after that tanks were overkill against any vehicle they went against.
And like in other conflicts, like Israel killing Palestinians, the tanks have no opposition.
It has been known for a long time that tanks are extremely vulnerable in the 21st century against equal foes. It’s not just drones, it’s also AT missiles from the air, man portable AT a missles from something like the American javelin, and other more modest direct man portable weapons like the RPG.
Literally all parts of land based warfare revolves around protecting your tanks and then destroying the enemy’s tanks. Control of the airspace, deployment of artillery and infantry, all these things are either tank counters or tank counter-counters.
Why???? Because an unanswered tank is unstoppable against “conventional” weapons. Armor is thicker than anything else and the gun is more powerful against anything else’s armor. An unopposed tank controls the land it is in and the enemy no longer controls it. As simple as that.
This is extremely similar to the cavalry in premordern warfare. They were the linchpin of conflict and the rest was either supporting it/countering it/ or countering the counters. Unopposed they could kill anything. But very expensive so needed protection against “cheap” techniques.
It is extremely known that against well developed adversaries tanks will not be the end all be all in order to win a conventional war. The pentagon knows this. It requires combined arms and control of the entire battle space at once. Which is involved and expensive.
Against lesser foes with undeveloped militaries or no Air Force tanks make short work of them.
The most basic answer in my opinion would be that you can not advance with FPV-s. You can make precise strikes and all, but to actually move the front line you need something armored that also has guns and can support advancing infantry.
Latest Answers