Are Traditional Armored Formations Becoming Obsolete in the Drone Era?

With the rapid spread of cheap FPV drones, loitering munitions, and highly effective ATGMs now mounted on relatively low-cost platforms, the modern battlefield is looking increasingly hostile to traditional armored formations—especially large, centralized tank units.

In this new landscape, is the concept of massed armor still viable, or is it becoming a relic of 20th-century warfare?

Perhaps it’s time to revisit a more decentralized model—something reminiscent of the French pre-WW2 doctrine, where tanks were organically embedded within infantry divisions rather than concentrated in armored corps. The key difference today, of course, is that modern infantry come equipped with IFVs and more robust combined-arms capabilities.

So the real question is: Should we restructure our armored forces for flexibility and survivability in a drone-dominated battlefield?
Or are we underestimating the enduring value of concentrated armored power when used smartly?

I’d love to hear from those with experience or interest in current military doctrine—how do you see armored warfare evolving in the next decade?

Since the end of World War II, the nature of combat has been shifting—and in the 21st century, urban warfare has become the dominant battlefield. Dense cityscapes, full of narrow streets, vertical threats, and countless angles of ambush, inherently favor fast-moving, flexible infantry units trained for close-quarters combat. In contrast, traditional heavy armor—once the backbone of ground offensives—often struggles to adapt in such environments.

As cities worldwide continue to grow and urbanization accelerates across both developed and developing nations, we have to ask: Is the tank still relevant, or are we witnessing the twilight of the armor age?

Modern battlefield tech is pointing toward new solutions. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) like Israel's Guardium are emerging as viable alternatives to tanks in close, urban terrain. The Guardium, actively deployed by the IDF along the Gaza Strip, performs a wide range of roles: from force protection and convoy security to combat logistics and surveillance—all while being remotely operated from a safe distance.

Unlike a 60-ton MBT, these systems can maneuver through tight alleys, avoid IED traps, and respond in real-time without risking a crew. With advancements in autonomy and AI, future UGVs could soon dominate urban zones where tanks now falter.

So—has the battlefield evolved past the tank? Will we see UGVs become the new armored spearhead in megacities of tomorrow?

Counter measures are not well implanted yet but I can see small C-RAM / LASER mounted system and ECM system following armored formations or installed on MBT soon enough against FPV drones, loitering munitions, and ATGM. We are already seeing ECM system all over the place for radio guided FPV drones. Laser are just waiting on the corner.

The worst system to counter are surveillance drones... Battlefield information kill chain is the biggest threat now with drones.

They can target for artillery guidance and wreck any advances. You need way bigger systems to shot them down because they are whey farther than drones making the kill. Taking an ORLAN -10 and 30 for example, they cost less than most missiles used to shot them down. They are made to make your day miserable.

Raining 155mm laser guided howitzer on your advance is clearly hell. Still Anti-thermal Anti-laser (AT-AL) Smoke Grenade exist... but if you want to cover an advance with a full armored formation, prepare some deep logistic supply chain. Unguided artillery barrage on big formations will still wreck your day.

Concentrating an armored column to prepare an advance could be met with an Iskander, ATACMS, glide bombs, etc, if found.

Destroying the information kill chain will be the biggest task for armored formations to be effective in the future. With 24/24h battlefield coverage, only pipelines crawling is stealthy.

I concur with you Atomicfrog.

I honestly believe we're at a major inflection point in warfare—similar to when tanks and aircraft first changed the battlefield forever. Back then, traditional infantry had no answer to these new machines… until they got some of their own. Then the fight became not just about the machine, but about how to manage, support, and counter them. We're seeing the same kind of shift now—but with drones.

Drones—particularly cheap FPV models and loitering munitions—are the new game-changers. They're saturating the battlefield, overwhelming traditional defenses, and forcing militaries to radically rethink force composition. But just like tanks and planes didn’t make everything else obsolete, drones won’t either. They’re exposing gaps that will be filled—likely with new tech and doctrine.

Take active protection systems (APS). If we reach a point where a tank can field thousands of micro-interceptors to take down small drones, while also countering missiles, rockets, and even optically-guided munitions with directed energy weapons and blinding lasers, then armor could very well make a comeback. Add to that integrated sensor suites capable of detecting drone operators through emissions or thermal/radar signatures, and you start imagining tanks as mobile drone-hunters rather than just gun platforms.

Sure, drone swarms are hard to stop—just like insect swarms in nature—but as always, military tech evolves. Some countermeasures will work, others will fail. It’s trial by fire, and the side that learns faster wins—at least until the other side adapts again.

Look at recent conflicts: In Nagorno-Karabakh, TB2s dominated against weak air defenses. Fast forward to Ukraine, and those same drones are being shredded by competent air defense networks. That’s pushed recon drones to get smaller, cheaper, and harder to detect—forcing air defense to adapt again with new tech to engage tiny, low-signature targets economically.

Lasers, jammers, advanced APS, and swarms of friendly hunter-killer drones will all play a part in leveling the field.

And frankly, I think Western forces are more vulnerable in the near term. Most NATO countries have let their air defense capabilities atrophy, while their drones are often too expensive to use at scale. Meanwhile, Russia and China are pumping out cheap, mass-producible systems that thrive in contested environments.

We’re not just watching the future of warfare unfold—we’re in it. The question is: who’s adapting fast enough to survive it?

Tank formations can still work but they need to have organic Air defense on the squad or even individual tank level. Modern battles rarely see tank vs tank battle. So, It might be worth it to reduce armor depth that was needed in the past to fight, use that weight savings to put radar and radar controlled AD system on the tank itself.

There should also be drones supporting an armored thrust, so these drones will essentially be escort drones that fights and destroys other drones. If these changes are implemented then armored thrust can work again.

tamsen_ikard said:

Tank formations can still work but they need to have organic Air defense on the squad or even individual tank level. Modern battles rarely see tank vs tank battle. So, It might be worth it to reduce armor depth that was needed in the past to fight, use that weight savings to put radar and radar controlled AD system on the tank itself.

There should also be drones supporting an armored thrust, so these drones will essentially be escort drones that fights and destroys other drones. If these changes are implemented then armored thrust can work again.

Click to expand...

I kind of see the evolution in tank design post drones as a parallel to that of naval warship design post aircraft carriers — forgo heavy armor in favor of advanced sensors and “smart” weapons. We may reach a point in the future where the main gun isn’t even the primary weapon on the tank.

Drones will change warfare fundamentally and forever, just as air power changed warfare when they were first introduced.

However just as air power didn’t erase armoured vehicles from modern militaries, neither will drones, especially not FPVs and similar adapted commercial drones. There are already whole catalogs of available off-the-shelf counters to drones. It’s just somewhat unfortunate for Russia and Ukraine that China chooses not to sell those systems to either party while they are at war. But if those drone countermeasures were to be deployed in Ukraine en mass, they will also fundamentally change the course of the war, just like how the first introduction of SAMs massively disrupted air power survivability and effectiveness. It’s always a never ending arms race.

As others have already covered, the biggest change commercial drones have brought to the battlefield is disposable, distributed, and difficult to detect surveillance and live artillery corrections. This one aspect has brought such a quantum leap in the lethality of traditional unguided artillery that it makes massed armoured advances prohibitively expensive in material and lives. This in turn forced both sides to rely on small scale raiding formations that are too small and nimble for traditional artillery to be as effective, which is what made FPVs so effective.

The key to countering drones is countering enemy artillery. Once you have successfully neutralised or suppressed enemy artillery, FPVs will be easy to counter with existing off the shelf anti-drone hard kill defences. Incidentally, those same anti drone defences should also be effective at dealing with small to moderate volumes of traditional artillery fire.

But the other aspect of Ukraine that doesn’t seem to get as much limelight but which is probably more impactful than drones is mine warfare.

Mines bogs down advances much more effectively than drones, and synergies well with drones and artillery to really pound advances that gets bogged down.

I would not be surprised if at some point someone tries a land battleship approach, where they extensively used retrofitted hovercraft for rapid assault over minefields. The Zubr immediately spring to mind. With some modest retrofits to add anti drone hard kill, it might be a real game changer in Ukraine with the limitations faced by both sides.

I would argue that formations as a whole is on the brink of obsolescence. The development of technology allows the mutual supporting of friendly vehicles that are far apart, thus concentration of forces becomes more and more risky. Infantry formations ended with ww1, so armored formations will probably one day follow suit.

You can build a $10 million tank with APS, both kinetic and EM anti-drone countermeasures, and pop on an unmanned turret with two foot thick top armor to defend against top attack ATGM. The the minute your tank runs into an anti-tank mine or get hit by a 155mm artillery shell, your $10 million just went down the drain.

siegecrossbow said:

I kind of see the evolution in tank design post drones as a parallel to that of naval warship design post aircraft carriers — forgo heavy armor in favor of advanced sensors and “smart” weapons. We may reach a point in the future where the main gun isn’t even the primary weapon on the tank.

Click to expand...

So the old "Landship" concept from WWI will be updated to be like modern ships.

Because the old "Landship" faces overwhelmingly the same kind of threats that ships did after ~1935.