NATO Achten Sie auf: Drohnen können Tanks nicht ersetzen, Experten warnen
https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2025/08/20/nato-beware-drones-cant-replace-tanks-experts-warn/
Von AcanthocephalaEast79
NATO Achten Sie auf: Drohnen können Tanks nicht ersetzen, Experten warnen
https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2025/08/20/nato-beware-drones-cant-replace-tanks-experts-warn/
Von AcanthocephalaEast79
10 Kommentare
This article doesn’t make much of a case for tanks. The article makes an argument for long range artillery and rockets.
Dumb clickbait headline.
Right now, the British Army only has about 25 main battle tanks ready to go. The rest, over a hundred Challenger 2s, are down with technical problems, either being fixed or just waiting for repairs.
Or Nukes!
It’s an article for stupid people. Obviously they can’t and won’t. Next.
They can’t, but tanks are useless until they will get active protection against drones on optic fiber…
I’ll put my armchair military expert hat here and pretend I know my shit.
As usual, nothing is a fully standalone arm*.
Every type of arms is extremely vulnerable by itself.
Tanks need infantry to protect them, and mobile AA and Anti-drone to provide cover (from jamming to Skyrangers to what might be a wheeled vehicle with a dozen shotguns on top), plus long-range towed howitzers plus self-propelled howitzers plus drones and manned aerial support.
Neither Ukraine nor Russia have the capabilities to deploy such a combined arms assault. In fact, nobody outside NATO has proven capabilities to deploy a modern combined arms assault, and the US are the only one who has proven capabilities to do it by themselves (vs other NATO forces which have done it in combination with the US).
Anyway, this is Reddit, so bring it on and we’ll incorrect each other into the sunset!
* Except for Honey Badgers. Those fuckers don’t care, they don’t give a shit.
I’m old enough to remember in 1991 when „experts“ warned on 60 Minutes that Iraqi howitzers were going to decimate American troops in the first Gulf War since they had greater range than US artillery.
Drone tanks perhaps?
I only skimmed the article, but I’m just questioning if anyone who matters are actually making the case that drones can replace tanks on the battlefield?
I thought it was just armchair generals and clickbait of various kinds (like this article) who was making that case…
If you’re going to break through enemy defences, you need tanks. That is still very obvious. The fact that the Ukraine war has ended up in a mostly static situation does not prove that tanks are useless. Tanks were invented to solve exactly the issue we are seeing in the Ukraine war in the first place. Modern technology makes that job more difficult, with or without tanks, but we still don’t have anything to replace tanks with in that role. Giving up tanks would essentially be the same as giving up any real offensive capability. And contrary to some popular conception of how war works, if your army is „good“ enough, it’s more effective/less costly to be on the offensive, having the initiative, and so on, than it is defending. The goal for militaries since at least ww2 has always been to reach a threshhold of offensive power, one way or another, to be able to effectively keep the intiative and offensive going against the enemy, and if that’s not possible you are not winning the war. And regardless of how you go about achieving that goal tanks are necessary (NATO has historically focused a lot on air power for example, but they still need tanks to move actual people forward, even though most of the firepower was coming from the air).
Yet