Why are tanks still used in battlefield if they can easily be destroyed by drones?
In: Other
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.
Latest Answers