>>65342171
>Tanks will be useful no matter how much you droon
Yes but their usefullness are reduced, thanks to droon.

>>65342174
>infantry is not useful anymore since we invented booolits

>>65342176
Boolits need infatry to operate.
Droon doesn't need tank to operate.

>>65342171
there will always be more drones than anything you can field on the theater
therefore you cannot win

>>65342171
>Tanks will be useful no matter how much you droon
There is reaon Ukraine is aimed to produce 7 millions drones per year, but zero tanks.

Why won't russians put anti-drone guns on tanks?

>>65342260
At you or with you?

>>65342198
ukraine builds what it fucking can, retard, they definitely want fighter jets but they can't build them so they're getting them from anywhere they can. For two straight years they needed tanks and couldn't build them, but they still got them from anywhere they could.

Ukraine also still uses tanks, even Russia still uses tanks, they use them as indirect ad-hoc artillery in fronts that permit it, but because they can't just wish away the hundreds of km of minefields and extremely dense defensses, guess what, tanks have limited uses. Everything, EVERYTHING is vunerable to drones if you can't rush fast enough not to get picked apart by a random drone team permanently assigned to watch over a field. Even drones themselves are weak to other drones, we're seeing essentially a stalemate of drones being unable to get rid of other drones, because Russian drone teams keep trying to locate and hit Ukrainian drone teams and Ukrainian drone teams keep finding and wiping incursions into the gray zone.

File: 1770763021772421.jpg (105 KB, 640x640)

105 KB JPG

Is /x/ missing a schizo?

>>65342287
Yeah looks like you hit the nail on the head with that one

Hey janny come get this retard

>>65342336
He fucking got your ass, dude

>60 seconds apart

>>65342345
Less than 60. Lighten up a bit. Jesus, it's one shitposter in one shitty little thread.

>>65342350
Now rant about logistics, you stupid fuck. Stop wasting everyone's time.

>>65342355
I take it back, there's no way you're a modern /x/phile if your drawings are intelligible

>>65342366
It's a rudimentary understanding of the potential, but I've been waiting for stacked grenade drones for a while, too.

>>65342171
>attack helicopters
Drones are to modern warfare what gunpowder was to medieval warfare. It's a total game changer. Essentially, we are seeing the end of manned vehicle warfare and human assault troops. War will be remotely operated by humans from afar and possibly even be fully autonomous killbots. Be afraid.

>>65342372
>drones = gunpowder
So it is going to exist alongside traditional means of waging war for centuries before finally becoming mature enough to obsolete those older technologies?

We're about a century into drone use. I could see drones taking over in another couple of hundred years, but personally I'm not really concerned about what is going to happen in the 2200s.

>>65342171
>We said the same fucking thing about attack helicopters and they didn't discontinue any weapon type whatsoever.
We also said aircraft carriers would never replace battleships and look how that turned out.

>>65342267
the ukrainians are not buying any tanks from any country in the world dude. 0 zero nada niente. 0 ordered, 0 requested.

what they are ordering is ifvs and apcs though, but the main battle tank is completely useless for ukraine.

>why have footsoldiers anymore when chariots exist?

>>65343191
Its more because they're not expecting to taking ground anytime soon tough. They play defensively so for defense, drones is pretty good to make sure enemy casualties as high as possible.

>>65342171
Drones are like magic to thirdworlders.

>>65342198
Because they ain't got the fucking means to produce new tanks, you mouth breathing third worlder? You don't just order the parts on Amazon and assemble, that shit is some very substantial infrastructure, which takes time to build, but meanwhile they do in fact use the tanks and IFVs they had from before, and have very gladly used various donated tanks and IFVs from Europe and America.

Turns out the Bradley M2 has not been obsoleted by droons at all, and the Ukies have gotten some excellent use out of them, and the same goes for tanks. In the first or second year of the war, there was outright a duel between a Ukrainian and Russian tank, a kind of fight which was rare to see even during WW2, the tankiest war to ever tank.

>>65342372
The droon cargo cult.

they said trench warfare was obsolete too

File: 50 cal UGV.mp4 (3.81 MB, 1280x720)

3.81 MB MP4

>>65342184
>Boolits need infatry to operate.

>>65344826
Guess who control that UGV?

>>65344834
not necessarily infantry

Agreed that tanks will always have a place but warfare is clearly trending towards unmanned systems and cheap loitering munitions which is gonna be horrific for the average infantryman until we figure out a reliable way to put 80 types of jammers and lasers on armor

>>65342174
>>65342198
Tanks require a ground up, fundamental redesign in the age of drones, but they're not going away.

>>65344837
>infantry
Really, are we going to debate what is considered an infantry now?

>>65342171
All innovations are eventually countered and give way. It is one of the key aspects of not just war, but technology and engineering as a whole - both of which are related to war itself and arguably two of its creators. Nothing is invincible forever. The idea of a wonder weapon is limited to the world of theory. The ideal weapon is never perfect when confronted with reality and the practical world.

We are in the "seemingly unsolvable" phase of the riddle of drone warfare. It will be countered, but by what you and almost everyone else asks? Well, no one can say for certain. What is true is that eventually a solution will be found, even if it takes years. Humans are good and bad at many things, but our ability to innovate, change, and adapt means all the weaponry we have, do, and will conceive is born with an expiration date.

>>65343212
>swords will never be obsolete, that's just delusional gunfag cope

Tanks without anti-drone guns and sensors are toast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilh0Me-ur0A

Also the bigger replacement of tanks is artillery even more so than drones (unless they can drop real aviation bombs). A direct line of sight from the vehicle firing the canon is needed less and less (thanks to drones).

>>65344998
Are real echelon truck drivers for logistics infantry?

File: Screenshot_20260720_14483(...).jpg (719 KB, 1079x1046)

719 KB JPG

Each new conflict brings us closer to the ultimate weapon system of planetary assault/defense.

>>65342176
>>65342171
>>65342174
>>65347256
Brotip: stop worrying about counters and start worrying about replacements. Carriers didn't replace battleships by countering them, they did it by doing a battleships job better. In the case of the tank, you have your holy trinity of firepower, protection, and mobility, but the latter 2 only exist in order to enable the former to be used where needed. The fundamental goal is ordnance on target. Now you don't need a tank to survive the approach march and get into position just to put ordnance on target. You can just send a drone from 35km.

>>65342171
Not really. What is the point of a tank when you can put rounds on target from much farther away with drone-guided fire? You're just putting the crew in danger for literally no reason. Direct line-of-sight cannon fire is obsolete, and thus, so is the tank.

File: 1780067782433.png (401 KB, 924x739)

401 KB PNG

3 years from now everyone will have their very own self-defence drone following them around everywhere

>>65350095
Outside their truck they are infantry. Yes.

File: 172992029203.jpg (70 KB, 411x486)

70 KB JPG

>>65342410
NTA.I would make parallels with more specific gunpowder revolution in 1500. Gunpowder, cannons and hand cannons were known for centuries but they didn't affect field combat much (changed siege warfare though). Similar we got guided weapons in WWII but first they affected only expensive targets, ships, aircrafts, soldiers continued to shot bullets are each other like it's 1525.
But then revolution happened. In 1460 first arquebus appeared and it spread extremely quickly especially for that era. In 1500 top military powers were armed with arquebus. We had sultans and HRE emperor making edicts literally banning bows among their elite Janissary and Landsknecht shock troops and demanding that they arm themselves with novel guns. In 1525, 1526 happen famous Pavia and Mohak battles where novel weapons triumphally defeated old school power of the knights. Historically for the era it was extremely fast, within one lifetime war changed completely.
Same thing today, "gunpowder" guided weapons were known since 1944 but in 2023 advances reached critical mass to change war for ordinary troops and every tank within one year.

File: 1829939393.jpg (209 KB, 1280x720)

209 KB JPG

>>65350126
Talking about parallels with carrieers and battleships. Were need "land carriers". Today drones are very effective but their launxh points lack mobility. Drones are launched by dismounting troops. And that undermines maneuver warfare and makes defense stronger. If you advance you quickly leave range of your "bubble" of drones and face enemy drones without your own drone support .

Military needs land carrier. AFV that can control and launch FPV and other drones on the move (compromise launch form short stop). Some APC with cargo storage of drones and drone "loaders", who can prepare drone for a launch on the move. And drones operator and stabilized communication antenna that can maintain control of the drone when vehicle is moving.
Such vehicle is absolutely necessary to conduct maneuver warfare in the drone era. Drones are extremely potent weapons, and you need to have capability to use them when you conduct maneuver.

>>65347376
>retard believes drones are to tanks what guns were to swords
LMAO, they have entirely different roles to begin with you fucking idiot. A sword is a personal use weapon for a single soldier
A gun is a personal use weapon for a single soldier.
A drone cannot perform the roles that a tank does. Unless it is a drone in the shape of a tank, in which case it would still be called a tank

>>65351563
Think of sword armed knight. Swords is a close range weapon
Tank is a close range weapon
Gun to sword a is long range weapon
Drone to tank is a long range weapon

>>65342171
Drones replace everything