Are Traditional Armored Formations Becoming Obsolete in the Drone Era?

Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Gone are the days when thick armor alone kept a tank alive on the battlefield. Today, survivability is more about what the enemy can’t see or hit than what a vehicle can absorb. Active Protection Systems (APS) are now baseline kit for modern armor—just the price of admission. But even APS can’t keep up with the constant swarm of FPV drones and multi-angle attacks saturating the modern battlefield.

To survive, we’ve got to think beyond just deflection and start talking deception and denial.

Digital-era camouflage is back in full force. We’re seeing multispectral camo nets, thermal signature masking, and obscurants being used to defeat ISR assets across the spectrum. Controlling your footprint in the electromagnetic and thermal domains is becoming as important as kinetic defense.

What’s happening in Ukraine underscores the point. Leopard 2s, exposed to top and rear attacks by cheap FPVs, are now rolling with improvised cage armor and operating under mobile SHORAD like the Gepard. It’s not always coordinated, but it’s a move toward what the IDF’s Merkava doctrine already shows: survivability is layered. APS, radar integration, counter-drone systems—tanks don’t fight alone anymore.

Bottom line: modern survivability isn’t just about stopping a round. It’s about not being seen, not being targeted, and not being where the enemy expects you to be. Mobility, EMCON, thermal discipline—it’s all part of the fight now.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Miragedriver said:
Gone are the days when thick armor alone kept a tank alive on the battlefield. Today, survivability is more about what the enemy can’t see or hit than what a vehicle can absorb. Active Protection Systems (APS) are now baseline kit for modern armor—just the price of admission. But even APS can’t keep up with the constant swarm of FPV drones and multi-angle attacks saturating the modern battlefield.

To survive, we’ve got to think beyond just deflection and start talking deception and denial.

Digital-era camouflage is back in full force. We’re seeing multispectral camo nets, thermal signature masking, and obscurants being used to defeat ISR assets across the spectrum. Controlling your footprint in the electromagnetic and thermal domains is becoming as important as kinetic defense.

What’s happening in Ukraine underscores the point. Leopard 2s, exposed to top and rear attacks by cheap FPVs, are now rolling with improvised cage armor and operating under mobile SHORAD like the Gepard. It’s not always coordinated, but it’s a move toward what the IDF’s Merkava doctrine already shows: survivability is layered. APS, radar integration, counter-drone systems—tanks don’t fight alone anymore.

Bottom line: modern survivability isn’t just about stopping a round. It’s about not being seen, not being targeted, and not being where the enemy expects you to be. Mobility, EMCON, thermal discipline—it’s all part of the fight now.
Click to expand...

Even with cages, more cages, EW, APS, cheap drones are all going to wear down all that, while the cost of the tank will rise prohibitively that it's going to end up as a white elephant. The military will be afraid to deploy and lose such an expensive system, and they cannot afford too many, which diminishes the battlefield effect of the system.

You can't force something round into a square peg when it no longer fits. Other than the drone it's also a return to the Infantryman. Drones, Artillery and Infantry are now the new meta of the battlefield. AFVs will still be there but for support and taxi.

In order for an armored assault to survive and reach its objectives, you must be proactive in wiping out as many of the enemy artillery and drones teams, along with tank forces using standoff measures. Clear off the entire area then you move. Your assault must be preceded by waves of clearing attacks.

Objectives must be short and realistic. The day of the deep thrust is over. It's now more like Macarthur's Island Hopping than Guderian Blitzkrieg. Except the islands are now forests and settlements where you land your infantry, storm and clear the position, while your drone forces, artillery and tank forces hit back at enemy stand off forces and strongholds in support of your troops.
 
Last edited:
Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Tam said:
Even with cages, more cages, EW, APS, cheap drones are all going to wear down all that, while the cost of the tank will rise prohibitively that it's going to end up as a white elephant. The military will be afraid to deploy and lose such an expensive system, and they cannot afford too many, which diminishes the battlefield effect of the system.

You can't force something round into a square peg when it no longer fits. Other than the drone it's also a return to the Infantryman. Drones, Artillery and Infantry are now the new meta of the battlefield. AFVs will still be there but for support and taxi.

In order for an armored assault to survive and reach its objectives, you must be proactive in wiping out as many of the enemy artillery and drones teams, along with tank forces using standoff measures. Clear off the entire area then you move. Your assault must be preceded by waves of clearing attacks.

Objectives must be short and realistic. The day of the deep thrust is over. It's now more like Macarthur's Island Hopping than Guderian Blitzkrieg. Except the islands are now forests and settlements where you land your infantry, storm and clear the position, while your drone forces, artillery and tank forces hit back at enemy stand off forces and strongholds in support of your troops.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree. The cost-benefit equation for traditional heavy armor is becoming harder to justify in a battlespace saturated with cheap, precise, and plentiful drones. As you rightly pointed out, survivability now hinges less on brute strength and more on smart integration of drones, infantry, and indirect fires.

It’s very likely that we’ll see a growing shift toward cheaper, more mobile wheeled armored vehicles and infantry support platforms that can be fielded in greater numbers, deployed faster, and are more expendable in high-threat environments. These vehicles, paired with robust drone and EW integration, can offer flexible firepower without putting billion-dollar systems at undue risk. It’s not the end of armor, it’s an evolution toward smarter, more adaptable battlefield tools.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Eventually anti drone defense will develop. But it will still be possible to design tanks to fight in this environment. The armor emphasis will be on all around protection.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
Eventually anti drone defense will develop. But it will still be possible to design tanks to fight in this environment. The armor emphasis will be on all around protection.
Click to expand...


Which is true but once again at what cost. Ar what point does the cost take you away from the budgets of other arms.

Not saying that tanks are no longer effective, they still are. We are also seeing Russian tanks getting better and better at protection, and resist hit after hit. Same with some Western tanks until their weak spots are known by examining salvage. Not just in protection, but you also need procedures to quickly retrieve damaged tanks and repair them.

Never underestimate what indirect fire does. Tanks in this war has been making to the most of it, and although it's effects are indistinguishable from shorter ranged artillery, artillery is now a bigger factor here. The destruction of strongholds, bunkers, drone crews, ATGM crews, observation posts, and everything you can hit within a 10km radius with a drone spotter.

A 10km range from the front, looking at the map, puts settlements and their supply lines in the grey fire zone. 10km is also the accepted operating range for FPV drones and drone bombers.

A bigger question lies in the survivability of APCs and IFVs. More than tanks, you need to keep the costs low as you need them in the big numbers to matter.

It falls back to being a numbers game and achieving drone superiority over a given sector.
 
L

leibowitz

Junior Member
Wonder if it makes sense to build a variant of the 8x8 ZBL19 without a turret, and instead with a bunch of small VLS cells to launch and recover drones instead. Sort of like a drone mothership or carrier
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tam
S

SouthGround

Just Hatched
Registered Member
The drone problem will only get worse with time. Currently the number of operable drones in a given area is limited by the quality of communications and C2 capacity.

As drones gain autonomy, these bottlenecks will be eased, and cheap saturation attacks will become the norm. EW and most soft kill measures will lose effectiveness.

The problem with current air defence systems (including gun-based and DEW ones), is that they are taking too much time, and using up too much magazine depth to defeat drone targets. When the target set is no longer a trickle of drones, but a saturation attack from multiple vectors, it will become a losing trade.

Even as these drones are engaged in the aforementioned scenario, they are probably pushing battlefield information (including targeting data) to other platforms, and can likely do so even in a comms degraded environment.

We are entering an era of pervasive and all encompassing situational awareness, ISR, drones, and fires. I think the idea that nations should spend 20-30 million euros per tank, and slap a 130mm cannon on it, is dead-end thinking.
 
Last edited:
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
You will need autonomous drone interceptors complemented by microwave weapons and point defense lasers as last line of defense.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
leibowitz said:
Wonder if it makes sense to build a variant of the 8x8 ZBL19 without a turret, and instead with a bunch of small VLS cells to launch and recover drones instead. Sort of like a drone mothership or carrier
Click to expand...

That's sounds like loitering munitions that can be packaged in a cylinder and launcher like a VLS.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top