Are Traditional Armored Formations Becoming Obsolete in the Drone Era?

Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
I agree with all of you above. Here are some additional thoughts to discuss. As battlefield dynamics shift in the 21st century, the traditional Main Battle Tank (MBT) is increasingly being questioned. Once the king of land warfare, the MBT is now being challenged by cheaper, faster, and smarter alternatives. Here's a look at the three main systems emerging as potential replacements or complements:

1) Wheeled Tank Destroyers​

Examples: Centauro II, AMX-10RC, Stryker MGS
Advantages:
High mobility, especially on roads and urban terrain
Faster strategic deployment (airliftable/logistically lighter)
Lower operational costs than tracked MBTs
Good firepower (105mm or 120mm guns)
Can provide Infantry support fire

Disadvantages:
Less armored protection than MBTs
Limited off-road performance in harsh terrain
Vulnerable to modern ATGMs and drones

2) IFVs, APCs, and Light Tactical Vehicles with ATGMs​

Examples: CV90, JLTV, Patria AMV with Spike or Javelin launchers
Advantages:
Flexibility: transport troops and engage tanks
Precision: modern ATGMs are highly effective even against MBTs
Lower costs and easier maintenance
Ideal for asymmetric or hybrid warfare

Disadvantages:
Thin armor: vulnerable to enemy fire and indirect attacks
Limited staying power in high-intensity, sustained combat
Effectiveness depends on combined arms coordination

3) Loitering Munitions ("Kamikaze Drones") on Light Vehicles​

Examples: Mounted Switchblade 600s, Lancet drones, homemade systems in modern conflicts
Advantages:
Extremely low cost per kill
Hard to detect and intercept
High lethality vs. stationary or slow targets (including tanks)
Can be operated from safe stand-off distances

Disadvantages:
Limited range and payload
Weather and jamming can degrade performance
Not a true replacement for armored platforms — better suited for hit-and-run or attrition tactics

Final Thoughts:​

MBTs aren't obsolete — but they're no longer the only game in town (just like the Battleship at the dawn of carriers). Instead of outright replacement, the future likely points to a combined force of lighter, more flexible platforms backed by precision weapons and drones.

For countries with limited budgets, the smart move might be a hybrid approach:
Fewer MBTs for heavy engagements
Wheeled vehicles and IFVs for mobility
Drones and ATGMs for precision strikes

The age of the tank isn't over — but the way tanks are used, and what supports them, is changing fast.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Miragedriver said:
I agree with all of you above. Here are some additional thoughts to discuss. As battlefield dynamics shift in the 21st century, the traditional Main Battle Tank (MBT) is increasingly being questioned. Once the king of land warfare, the MBT is now being challenged by cheaper, faster, and smarter alternatives. Here's a look at the three main systems emerging as potential replacements or complements:

1) Wheeled Tank Destroyers​

Examples: Centauro II, AMX-10RC, Stryker MGS
Advantages:
High mobility, especially on roads and urban terrain
Faster strategic deployment (airliftable/logistically lighter)
Lower operational costs than tracked MBTs
Good firepower (105mm or 120mm guns)
Can provide Infantry support fire

Disadvantages:
Less armored protection than MBTs
Limited off-road performance in harsh terrain
Vulnerable to modern ATGMs and drones

2) IFVs, APCs, and Light Tactical Vehicles with ATGMs​

Examples: CV90, JLTV, Patria AMV with Spike or Javelin launchers
Advantages:
Flexibility: transport troops and engage tanks
Precision: modern ATGMs are highly effective even against MBTs
Lower costs and easier maintenance
Ideal for asymmetric or hybrid warfare

Disadvantages:
Thin armor: vulnerable to enemy fire and indirect attacks
Limited staying power in high-intensity, sustained combat
Effectiveness depends on combined arms coordination

3) Loitering Munitions ("Kamikaze Drones") on Light Vehicles​

Examples: Mounted Switchblade 600s, Lancet drones, homemade systems in modern conflicts
Advantages:
Extremely low cost per kill
Hard to detect and intercept
High lethality vs. stationary or slow targets (including tanks)
Can be operated from safe stand-off distances

Disadvantages:
Limited range and payload
Weather and jamming can degrade performance
Not a true replacement for armored platforms — better suited for hit-and-run or attrition tactics

Final Thoughts:​

MBTs aren't obsolete — but they're no longer the only game in town (just like the Battleship at the dawn of carriers). Instead of outright replacement, the future likely points to a combined force of lighter, more flexible platforms backed by precision weapons and drones.

For countries with limited budgets, the smart move might be a hybrid approach:
Fewer MBTs for heavy engagements
Wheeled vehicles and IFVs for mobility
Drones and ATGMs for precision strikes

The age of the tank isn't over — but the way tanks are used, and what supports them, is changing fast.
Click to expand...

Wheeled tank destroyers aren't very helpful. They're likely to be destroyed quickly by FPV drones, light thin armour means a drone with an RPG-7 is going to blow through and ignite the ammo creating a catastrophic explosion. The AMX-10RC were all quickly destroyed in Ukraine.

IFVs and APCs with ATGMs isn't working either for the same reason than a drone attack can set off the ATGM and *BOOM*. It didn't take long for the Ukrainians to remove ATGMs off their Bradleys. I have yet to see an ATGM launched from an IFV in the conflict. The problem is that ATGMs are mostly line of sight, in a war quickly becoming No Line Of Sight. Instead look at vehicles like the DPRK Bulsae-4 which is none line of sight and can travel 25km. Bulsae-4 has been used in the Kursk campaign.

MBTs are just double downing in protection. Complete with Mangals, some are taking an insane amount of FPVs before they are finally destroyed. In the meantime, like the "tank" in an RPG, they aggro and draw enemy fire, while mechanized infantry successfully complete their assaults. Many drone videos are one sided, they saw a tank getting repeatedly attacked by drones, not to mention you can edit the videos to make it imply each drone is attacking a separate tank so you can inflate the casualty count. What they miss is the mechanized infantry successfully storming the position somewhere nearby. If the assault is successful, then the tank's sacrifice is successful. As often they are towed back, gets repaired, and goes back to the front as another turtle tank.

The vehicles that you are seeing more useful now, are SPGs. They hide in closed positions and use guided shells. For the Ukrainians, Excaliburs. For the Russians, Krasnopols and it's smaller siblings, the 120mm Kitilov-2 and the 122mm Kitilov-2M, all of whom are having serious ramped up in production. For the most part, tanks are also being used like SPGs, and it's done the most damage.

Another type of vehicle that needs mention is the Self Propelled Mortar. They are either in wheeled or tracked vehicles. While vulnerable to drone attacks, they do, however shoot and scoot, easily behind cover, and mortars cover dead spots that howitzers cannot. Mortars work very well in urban environments for this reason. The Russians use a 120mm that can work both as a mortar and a howitzer, and with a guided projectile to boot.

SPGs are very useful because they can quickly respond to a fluid constantly shifting position.

Once again, APCs, MRAPS, and IFVs are still needed because drones don't take territory, you still need an armored assault for that.
 
Miragedriver

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Tam said:
Wheeled tank destroyers aren't very helpful. They're likely to be destroyed quickly by FPV drones, light thin armour means a drone with an RPG-7 is going to blow through and ignite the ammo creating a catastrophic explosion. The AMX-10RC were all quickly destroyed in Ukraine.

IFVs and APCs with ATGMs isn't working either for the same reason than a drone attack can set off the ATGM and *BOOM*. It didn't take long for the Ukrainians to remove ATGMs off their Bradleys. I have yet to see an ATGM launched from an IFV in the conflict. The problem is that ATGMs are mostly line of sight, in a war quickly becoming No Line Of Sight. Instead look at vehicles like the DPRK Bulsae-4 which is none line of sight and can travel 25km. Bulsae-4 has been used in the Kursk campaign.

MBTs are just double downing in protection. Complete with Mangals, some are taking an insane amount of FPVs before they are finally destroyed. In the meantime, like the "tank" in an RPG, they aggro and draw enemy fire, while mechanized infantry successfully complete their assaults. Many drone videos are one sided, they saw a tank getting repeatedly attacked by drones, not to mention you can edit the videos to make it imply each drone is attacking a separate tank so you can inflate the casualty count. What they miss is the mechanized infantry successfully storming the position somewhere nearby. If the assault is successful, then the tank's sacrifice is successful. As often they are towed back, gets repaired, and goes back to the front as another turtle tank.

The vehicles that you are seeing more useful now, are SPGs. They hide in closed positions and use guided shells. For the Ukrainians, Excaliburs. For the Russians, Krasnopols and it's smaller siblings, the 120mm Kitilov-2 and the 122mm Kitilov-2M, all of whom are having serious ramped up in production. For the most part, tanks are also being used like SPGs, and it's done the most damage.

Another type of vehicle that needs mention is the Self Propelled Mortar. They are either in wheeled or tracked vehicles. While vulnerable to drone attacks, they do, however shoot and scoot, easily behind cover, and mortars cover dead spots that howitzers cannot. Mortars work very well in urban environments for this reason. The Russians use a 120mm that can work both as a mortar and a howitzer, and with a guided projectile to boot.

SPGs are very useful because they can quickly respond to a fluid constantly shifting position.

Once again, APCs, MRAPS, and IFVs are still needed because drones don't take territory, you still need an armored assault for that.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely. All of the combat support vehicles I listed — whether they be wheeled tank destroyers, IFVs with ATGMs, or light strike vehicles — are “thin-skinned” by comparison to main battle tanks and are highly susceptible to catastrophic loss if struck by anything larger than a 20mm cannon. That said, they still serve an important role on the modern battlefield.

What they lack in heavy armor, they make up for in cost-effectiveness, strategic flexibility, and logistical simplicity. Unlike main battle tanks, these vehicles are cheaper to acquire and maintain, require fewer specialized crews, and are easier to deploy in large numbers or over long distances. In asymmetric warfare or low-intensity conflicts, they can provide critical infantry support, convoy escort, and even serve in limited anti-tank roles when equipped with modern ATGMs.

No one’s claiming these vehicles can replace tanks one-for-one in high-intensity armored warfare — that would be unrealistic. But in the right operational context, they’re a valuable complement to heavier units, especially when budget, terrain, or rapid mobility are major factors.
 
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Tam said:
The vehicles that you are seeing more useful now, are SPGs. They hide in closed positions and use guided shells. For the Ukrainians, Excaliburs. For the Russians, Krasnopols and it's smaller siblings, the 120mm Kitilov-2 and the 122mm Kitilov-2M, all of whom are having serious ramped up in production. For the most part, tanks are also being used like SPGs, and it's done the most damage.

Another type of vehicle that needs mention is the Self Propelled Mortar. They are either in wheeled or tracked vehicles. While vulnerable to drone attacks, they do, however shoot and scoot, easily behind cover, and mortars cover dead spots that howitzers cannot. Mortars work very well in urban environments for this reason. The Russians use a 120mm that can work both as a mortar and a howitzer, and with a guided projectile to boot.

SPGs are very useful because they can quickly respond to a fluid constantly shifting position.
Click to expand...
Not that long ago you argued towed guns are more useful than SPG’s.;)
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
vincent said:
Not that long ago you argued towed guns are more useful than SPG’s.;)
Click to expand...

Because small towed howitzers are easier to hide, and put inside a dugout, cover with camouflage. If the gun is inside a dugout, fragmentation and cluster munitions are useless against it. The way to take it out is via Krasnopol or Lancet assuming the UAV spots it, which can fail due to the altitude of the UAV and the clever camouflage applied. So the gun needs to be firing so it can be spotted. You can a slow flying drone to sneak up on it, and this is where the fiberoptic drones come in.

The problem of some of the wheeled truck based SPGs is that they are big and easily spotted. On the other hand, these travel through the highway easily, you don't need to put them on a trailer unlike a tracked SPG.

Each SPG has specific problems we can come to later.

The kind of SPGs that can best respond to fluid situations are the smaller and more mobile ones. However casualties among them are fairly high, if not by drone then by counter battery. The Russians also stopped making them (2S1 Gvozdika and 2S3 Akasya). The 2S19 MSTA-S is a beast but it's not necessarily agile. This leaves you with BMP-3 and BMD-4 based alternatives like the 2S31 Vena and 2S42 Lotus, but these are rare because much of the BMP and BMD production are for the much needed main IFVs to be used on assaults.

The 2S43 Malva and 2S44 Hyacinth-K are big wheeled SPGs that can take advantage of the highway but like the 2S21 Bogdana and the French CAESAR, they are easily spotted and hit if near the front.
 
phrozenflame

phrozenflame

Junior Member
Registered Member
This will into evolve to systems vs systems, like we saw in air engagements. Platforms (MBTs) in this case alone wont be sufficient. There will be dedicated multi-role anti-drone vehicles as well as drones which will be part of the whole pack. More so then even before. Drones will be integral part of this all.
 
B

Black Wolf

New Member
Registered Member
While it’s increasingly popular to suggest that traditional armored formations are becoming obsolete in the era of drones, such conclusions can be misleading if viewed through too narrow a lens. Much of this thinking is based on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where drones have effectively exposed vulnerabilities in large, conventional armored columns. However, conflict dynamics vary significantly, and broad generalizations risk ignoring critical variables.

Doctrines are not static they are shaped by the specific terrain, threats, and technological capabilities of each conflict environment. What works in the open plains of Eastern Europe may not apply in mountainous regions, dense urban areas, or jungle warfare. Operational effectiveness depends not only on the platforms used but on how well they are integrated into a cohesive, adaptive strategy.

For example, during the Pakistan-India clashes, success was not just about superior technology but the effective application of a network-centric warfare doctrine. Pakistan’s performance showcased a high level of operational maturity: highly skilled pilots, robust training regimes, and smart integration of systems like Link-16 and Link-17 enabled real-time data sharing and enhanced situational awareness across multiple platforms. The Erieye AEW&C played a pivotal role in battle management, while the strategic deployment of the Blinders squadron for electronic warfare and deception added a significant tactical edge.

This was not simply a triumph of individual aircraft, it was a demonstration of how a well-oiled, modern air combat ecosystem, tailored to the specific demands of the conflict, can prevail. It underlines that effectiveness in modern warfare stems from integration, adaptability, and context not just raw platform capabilities.

In the same way, armored formations are not obsolete by default. Their continued relevance depends on how they evolve to fit into joint, multi-domain operations. With the right doctrine, technological upgrades, and integration into a networked battlespace, armor can still deliver strategic value even in the drone era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top