It used to be if you wanted to put artillery rounds on target precisely, the gun crew needed to be within visual range. Firearms eventually had their effective range extended until they made this too dangerous for gun crews, but then the tank was invented: a tracked armored box that would protect the crew from small arms fire so they could engage frontline targets without being picked off.Now, however, reconnaisance drones enable an artillery crew to see their target without having to spot it in person. There is no reason artillery pieces need to be moved up to within visual range in an armored box to accurately engage targets, and the measures needed to protect them on the modern battlefield are uneconomical. You can simply leave the artillery well behind the front and direct their fire with modern surveillance equipment; there is no reason to make them run the gauntlet against every drone, mine and ATGM to enable them to spot targets in person with their Mk. 1 eyeball.
>slavshit is exposed as slavshit>rather than conclude that slavshit is shit, OP thinks the whole category is worthless it's like saying rifles are obsolete, gay and worthless because SKSes and AK patterns are obsolete, gay and worthless.
>>65378631inb4 "but they look good! they are rugged and work!"that's like calling indian e.coli sewerslop good food because it may look okay and take hunger away for a moment before you die of diarrhea
>>65378631You didn't actually read the OP, did you?
>>65378643>Arty can't always be on call Uh, why?
>>65378649Because it needs to reload, relocate and there is delay between fire request and actual fire. Tank shaves a lot of that lag off and protects infantry from enemy's vehicles too.
>>65378643That gap can be filled by self-propelled mortars.
Artillery crews don't need to 'see' their target in order to destroy it and battlefield reconnaissance drones with real time data links have existed for half a century.Nobody knows what OP is even trying to say
>>65378622The tank hasn't been just "armored artillery" for literally most of a century now, retard.
>>65378622Drones and artillery can't duplicate the tank in all cases, like trench killdozing. Armor is versatile and war rewards ingenuity.
>>65378622I heard the new zigger Active reactive stuff they used on that assault a week ago did work, but they still lost 9 tanks. Curiously there's no drone footage of it yet. I suspect it is to not give data for russians on the efficiency or inefficiency of the system
>>65378791It didn't work>Curiously there's no drone footage of it yet.There is footage of it being worthless and Russian
>>65378697Sure it could, but since it's going to be facing frontline threats (and there are exploding drones everywhere) you're going to want it to be really armored up, probably on treads to support the weight. And since frontline threats might be close in it would probably help to have something with less flight time and arc to optimize for more direct fire, like say a higher velocity cannon of some kind and oh would you look at that we've made a tank again. Tanks aren't going to go away as long as the need to roll up and blast shit exists. Direct combat has not and likely will not stop happening because of drones. Mobile cannons have been a thing since cannons and slapping a motor, treads, and armor on it is just an extension of that. We've had a land war going on for four years now where both sides are still scrambling to get as many tanks as they can get their hands on. Tank sales are through the roof and countries are paying special attention to trying to proof them for whatever the next battlefield ends up being (they're betting on a lot of drones being around). If they were obsolete they would be looking for something else to use as a frontline fighting vehicle (they aren't) or stopped bothering with it entirely (they aren't).
>>65378622>another anti-tank dronenigger propaganda threadTanks are not obsolete, drones can’t do what tanks do. Stop seething so hard about it.
>>65379089>Tanks are not obsolete, drones can’t do what tanks do.Main roles of tank since WWII is killing other tanks.Drones kill tanks better than tanks, Ukrianian stats from 2023: 80% Russian tanks killed by drones, 10% by mines, 10% by everything else combined.
>>65379102>Ukrianian stats...to the trash it goes.Give me unbiased russian stat anon.
>>65379102>Main roles of tank since WWII is killing other tanks.maybe if your understand of them comes entirely from war thunder>80% Russian tanks killed by drones, 10% by mines, 10% by everything else combined.what's the percentage of russian infantry killed by drones and artillery? does that mean infantry is obsolete?
>>65378751This is actually intresting given the proliferation of anti-tank capabilities there may be room for the return of a "breeching vehicle" which functions doctrinally much like the heavy tank or assault tank WW2 past. Which is to say a vehicle with heavy enough armor to withstand most threat the infantry or drones can provide and which is armed mostly for destroying enemy emplacements at close range under support from other assets. Essentially remove the gun since it won't be dueling other tanks and instead replace all that weight saved with armor on almost all faces of the tank. Then arm it with an autocannon and some sort of explosive projector specifically made to fuck up trenches and bunkers. You almost expect its armament to get fucked up and it to be mission killed if it gets bombarded by drones but at least the crew and vehicle itself would survive. All this is assuming you can get enough armor. Though given that speed is less of an issue for such a vehicle it should be doable.
>>65379102>main role of tanks since WW2 is killing other tanksWrong again, you are retarded.
>>65378836>as long as the need to roll up and blast shit existsThere's literally no need to "roll up" any more, drones took that away.
>>65379102Not only is this guy retarded, that stat is also total bullshit.Yes anon, a weapon with a livestreaming fucking camera on it is going to have more confirmed kills, that doesn’t actually represent it’s effectiveness accurately.
Why are you comparing artillery to tanks? They don't serve the same role.Fire without maneuver is indecisive, the role of armored vehicles is enabling maneuver.
>>65379446No, they didn’t.I love it when droneniggers go “u-uh and now freeze time!”Nigger, this conflict is brand new and work is being done on droneproofing the next generation of tanks.Everyone is still buying tanks, everyone still wants tanks, there’s a reason they’re not hiring midwits like you to do defense procurement.
>>65378653Artillery can now have their own spotting drones. The crew can have a direct camera feed of enemy positions, that delay barely exists anymore.
>>65379459That's like saying battleships weren't obsolete in 1942 because everyone was still building them. It was inertia/delusion. The era of the floating artillery platform was over by 1941, aircraft were superior, but people weren't fully willing to accept it until after WW2. It mimics the tank defence in a lot of ways, especially the obsession with an ever-narrower scope of tasks only a tank can do, as if those very particular things are worth the investment. There is no pressing need for every ground engagement to have a tank there for direct fire support, when modern indirect artillery fire can do almost the same thing but without the crew having to run the gauntlet and expose themselves at the frontline, while also being able to engage targets beyond the frontline as well.
>>65378622Bah gawd, weapon systems and tactics advance. What a shocker. Why are you crying about this? Development wont stay still. If that bothers you so much I'd suggest killing yourself.
>>65379676Why are people so angry that tanks continue to be not obsolete?Adaptations to drone warfare are being developed and put into production, everyone is still buying and selling tanks.
>>65379693They are obsolete, NATOids just refuse to accept it because you're tank nerds.Ukrainian drone teams and infantry beat NATO armored forces every time they do exercises against each other. The advantage have a tank gives you is completely hypothetical, it doesn't actually exist on the modern battlefield. It's only retained by the illusion granted by air superiority, the same way a battleship might. Sure, if you HAVE a battleship and the enemy has no air force, you can get some use out of it, but if the enemy does have an air force its utility vanishes. It's a vanity weapon. Same with the tank - having air control can give the illusion tanks are still a good idea because air support can suppress the enemy to the point they can't threaten your tanks as badly. But you shouldn't design your ground forces on the assumption you have air control, that's a good way to ensure you will definitely lose if you don't.
>>65379102>Main roles of tank since WWII is killing other tanks.Actually, it's been for knocking out dug in infantry. Infantry CONSTANTLY outnumbers tanks to the point we had 66 infantry divisions to 16 armored divisions. Tanks were far, far more likely to encounter enemy infantry than enemy tanks.
>>65379710Dude, men with rifles have shot down drones.
>>65379710They are not, sorry bud.>y-you refuse to accept it!Yes yes, you’re sooo much smarter than all the people doing procurement…>NATOidsNo, the entire planet lmao, everyone is still producin, upgrading, developing and building new tanks, and there is no sign of it stopping any time soon.>b-but muh wargame where drones killed a few people out of a brigade size element!You don’t actually know how wargames work, do you?>t-the same way battleship mightThis is why i know you’re a midwit, you people always make nonsensical historical comparisons that are entirely different from the wrong proposition you’re implying.Battleships became obsolete because carriers could do what battleships could better, this is still not the case for tanks.Tl;dr dronenigger, you can keep screeching the tank is obsolete, but the whole world disagrees with you lol.
>>65379721They can also shoot out the optics on a tank, the difference being the drones are easier to replace.
>>65379732You people refuse to listen to what I'm saying because you can't argue against it.Drones do not replace tanks. I didn't say that. I said drones allows artillery fire to be applied accurately without line of sight, making tanks superfluous, since the whole point of a tank is to allow for line-of-sight artillery fire by keeping the crew protected and mobile.
>>65379734> drones are easier to replaceNot necessarily
>>65379693People can only see topics in black and white cause nuances are difficult for the feable mind.Like this gentleman here >>65379710 that possibly would argue for preparing for failure. And while there is some sense in that, instead of thinking what you do when on the backfoot its usually better to prepare for that never to happen. In our case that would be going all in on making sure we have air superiority. Cause you gonna be fucked if you don't have it either way, if you prepare for failure you just get fucked a bit less. You should aim to not get fucked at all.
>>65379743>you peopleYou mean the whole world.The problem for you is that you think witnessing the ukraine war made you an expert on what works in a conflict.The thinned out, stalemated frontline was happening before mass adoption of small attack drones. They are a result of their environment, not the other way around.Try running a frontline like this in a place that is not mostly open steppe, or on a smaller, denser frontline manned by more people, or with richer countries that actually have the money to deploy drone countermeasures en-masse, and it works out a little differently.Drones have become an integral part of warfare, but you people take it too far.
>>65379654>That's like saying battleships weren't obsolete in 1942They weren't, the US used them both as massive bombardment units for landing operations and nigh unsinkable anti-air platforms. The Jap battleships mostly got blow away by other surface units it was only the destruction of the Yamatos which gave the impression that battleships were helpless against aircraft. That was mostly because Jap AA was complete and utter shit. Their 25mm were undersized and difficult to load, their secondary batteries didn't have good radar control or often any at all, their total volume of fire was low for example a North Carolina could put more total weight of shot into the Air than the Yamato even when firing its main guns as ineffective AA.And that was all only in the Pacific, aircraft carriers and naval aviation in general had a bad showing in the Med at the start of the war which when combined with the fact that so many ground based aircraft were available and even they didn't do well against surface combatants. That made many observers think that naval aviation had been overrated much like tactical bombing in the interwar period and the latter was actually true. The Battleships weren't obsolete and only pop history faggots think they were. In fact your entire argument is pop history faggotry because you are comparing two different situations as if they were salient. That's normalfag logic, and actual argument gets into the technical details of an existing situation which unfortunately are lacking. We did see that just spamming drones wasn't effective for Iran. It can destroy assets which are outside the EW and air defense envelope of the force, like say aircraft parked at an airbase they think won't get hit. But just throwing drones at the enemy doesn't work if the enemy aren't dirt poor slavs or retarded sandniggers
I want tankoids to tell me why I would spend money on a tank rather than a self-propelled howitzer with spotter drones. You speak as if ditching tanks is just a net loss, but every tank you don't buy is something else you CAN buy. What is the justification for buying a tank when it is arguably the less flexible, less useful asset?
>>65379819They can't. They will tell you you can drone proof a tank, but let's pretend it's true. Ok, the tank is drone proof, a jet will blow it up because the drones have live footage of your tank. Second. Your idea of combating a cheap or a weapon that scales so well with production, like drones. Is to make a tank that's already expensive and takes forever to build, more expensive, heavy and take longer to buil? Tanks are bottlenecked by humans anyway. In this day and age, sending a man with tons of steel protecting him, when drones exist id simply a reckless use of manpower.
>>65379819>>65379830Depends entirely on the how prevalent and competent the electronic warfare is environment in which they'll be operating and if you need to smash hardpoints which are going to be heavily defended by infantry and their own smaller wired drones.If you're turdie or a slav who has no money for shit and your EMC aren't up to US standards then the drones and light arty are a much cheaper option as you aren't going to get some baroque specialized tank anyway. All drones have done is to make guided munitions and aerial observation available to poorer actors. And they've been doing that since the civil war in Syria.Now in some hypothetical scenario where the two Americas from different dimensions are facing off or China somehow unfucks itself enough to get their electronic warfare together you might need a tank as part of a combined arms platoon to take enemy fortifications. The drones and arty destroy trenches or at least suppress their occupants. The infantry make sure the trenches are clear whiles the tank provides cover. And if you immediately need a fortification smashed or an enemy AFV destroyed you have a tank. The days of massive armored spearheads are over, but they've been over since the 70s with the proliferation of attack helicopters and other close air support with guided munitions. But in an actual army the tank would have a place, ironically they would be spread out like French doctrine dictated in 1940 rather than massed for a penetrating attack. This is a moot point because China isn't white and will never unfuck itself, the Russians are too drunk and nearly crippled, Europe has its own problems, and either the US will keep murdering hadjis for Israel or there will be a white nationalist revolt and civil war after which the US will simply be exterminating hadjis en masse with nerve agents. But if we did have a rival great power that wasn't retarded then tanks would have utility.
>>65379427so basically a killdozer?
>>65378637As soon as I see "x is obsolete" thread, i skip the foreplay and jump right to calling OP a retarded faggot
>>65379755>smaller, denser frontline manned by more peopleYou know artillery is more effective in those situations, right?
Did any of you consider what happens when effective drone countermeasures are developed after you declared every weapon system obsolete?>you have no tanks or IFV's>you have no artillery>you have no CAS
>>65379427>>65379870Good point, that is a distinct possibility. Both transit infrastructure and heavy power machinery are far more developed than the world of WW2; a 150-ton breaching vehicle isn't out of the question with 400-ton haul trucks in common civilian use. Much like the JCB HMEE is a 60mph armored backhoe, a Cat D9 that drives like an MBT and carries a 155mm+ demolition mortar is highly relevant for it's ability to outscale asymmetric threats while delivering tank-like presence - anything large enough to deliver meaningful payload versus it also grows large and expensive enough to become vulnerable to the USAF's monopoly on conventional air superiority. It would also be a good way to leverage unique/exceptional BLUFOR capabilities, like Caterpillar's virtual monopoly on large-scale dozer fabrication, and a worthy successor to the M728's proven breaching capability.
Everything you think you know about modern war is predicated on one things, a vast and fragile ecosystem of technology. Without GPS a lot of this stops working, without lithium drones don't fly, without gas tanks don't move and so on and so forth. The first few minutes of a true war will decide what happens for the majority of it after. If all the drone, battery and fuel refineries are leveled by missiles, then we will be back to guns and bullets pretty quickly. In fact, we might even be back to swords and rocks quickly too considering how short a period of time one can blow off 1000 rounds in battle as a single soldier now. So basically, if you're preparing for WWIII, probably buy a hazmat suit, a water filter and a sword.
>>65379924You know drones are less effective in those scenario’s, right?You know tanks are more effective in those scenario’s, right?
>>65379830>>65379819Wrong on both counts, sorry that tanks are not obsolete, hope you get over it some day.
>>65379964Just two more weeks and drones will be countermeasure'D.com.Drones make artillery more effective and drones give you cheap CAS.But for tanks, they just make the tank worse as a concept.
>>65378622What are you going to send in after your air supremacy, drones, and artillery have "destroyed," all known targets and you have to finally take ground with your mech infantry? A fucking tank.>>65379885This man is the smartest poster ITT.
>>65380229Oh, but surely after the artillery has done it's job the infantry can just walk over there and that'll be it?
>>65378622More than a decade on from the original study and OP just keeps pushing the envelope in sucking cock time and again.
>>65379964>"after seeing what these new aircraft carriers can do, I'm starting to wonder what we need battleships for">"OH SO YOU THINK ALL SHIPS ARE OBSOLETE NOW?"
>>65379819I'll explain it with what I call the "battleship analogy." Early on in aviation history the MB-2 was used to effectively demonstrate the ability for aircraft to destroy modern warships (SMS Ostfriedsland). While the US military was relatively unimpressed and begrudged to acknowledge the viability, it forced the Navy to arm its warships with AA batteries. These started small: .50 cal mgs and 3-inch guns and were "gud enuf". These are roughly equivalent to early drones used in Syria circa 2014/15 against MBTs. Back to ships: the 1930s saw a mass investment in aviation to take out ships (dive-bombing, torpedo bombers, fighter squadrons to escort/patrol). Such was countered in the 1940s by increasing three things: AA complements on warships, AA target acquisition/tracking capabilities, and CAP from friendly aviation. All these were only barely overcome very briefly by kamikaze tactics.This era in aviation/ship combat is roughly equivalent to our current era we observe with drone/MBT."Hoho" Says you, apparently, "but that means that drones are effective because theyre only kamekaze!" Yes, but technology and tactics rapidly developed to counter this same issue. Better radar, tracking, and further engagement distance made airplanes unviable as a weapon delivery method for a while. Even the invention of anti-ship missiles carries an inherent risk for aircraft launching them.So, what does that mean today? We are in an era where tanks are equivalent to 1930s battleships, and the counter to drones is being developed. When that counter is developed, its going to fundamentally change the armor element in warfare in a way not even the staunchest of dronefags or tankers will be able to understand.
>>65380377Landwar isn't even comparable to naval warfare. All surface fleet is eggs in a basket in one way or another, and because of the laws of physics you can just make a bigger and more armored ship. Tanks are about as heavy as they can be to still transport to theater and be able to navigate terrain and bridgeheads. If it was easy as making a landship that can tank (heh) done hits then we'd do it. Its more of rock paper scissors paradigm shift where the tank shouldn't be getting hit in the first place unless its direct fire.
>>65380526if tank not getting hit then why tank need armor?
>>65380179>j-just two more weeks and drones will make tanks obsolete!Sorry sweety, they won’t,
>>65380316>noooooo i made a retarded historical connection that doesn’t work you HAVE to agree with me now, tanks are battleships tanks are battleships!Nope, they’re not, tanks are not obsolete, sorry.
>>65380569To engage targets it can deal with. Can't send trucks unless you took the ground first, which shouldn't start to happen until your armored column has the way cleared by air and artillery.All things work in conjunction. You also don't send in ground support aircraft unless the skies are clear, but that doesn't make them obsolete because Russians wrongfully committed rotary assets before the skies were clear.
>>65379161>maybe if your understand of them comes entirely from war thunderEntire development of tanks late WWII and after>put on tank canon that penetrates enemy tank>put armor that stops enemy tank canon>everything else is secondaryAbrams tank until 2020s didn't even have HE shell, only anti armor shells.
>>65379718>Actually, it's been for knocking out dug in infantry.German doctrine to deal with infantry for panzer division during WWII was for panzers do drive fast past trenches, infantry was dealt by panzergrenadier. They drove their half trucks over trenches and fired SMGs and threw grenades over the top into trenches without dismounting. TEMPO TEMPO TEMPO! This is why Germans so insisted on open top APC.
>>65379811>The Battleships weren't obsolete and only pop history faggots think they were.Every real naval power (aka USA and Japan) after PH and Coral Sea realized battleships are obsolete and canceled laying doing new, and carriers maxxed, including reporposing of already laid down artillery ships into carriers.Only delusioned faggots continued to believe in battleships.
>>65380611NTA but you're fucking retarded.
>>65378622>thinks tanks were a replacement for artilleryYou're a dumb faggot shit who needs to stop talking about shit you haven't got a clue about.Oh no! Drones can see really far all of a sudden? We've had drones since fucking WW2 you dumb shit. We've had planes and balloons spotting for artillery since WW1. Hell, we've had drones more capable than the cheap third world ones that have you all hot and bothered, in common use, for the past 30 years.>Oh nooo hurrrr tanks are obsolete cuz a couple got blown up by drones cuz the low IQ slavs driving them keep the hatches openTalk to a fucking cold war era tanker and ask them what their estimated average lifespan was in the scenarios they were preparing for. Protip: it's roughly 5 minutes.Cheap thirdie drones are neat and all, but they're not changing first world conventional war one fucking bit. At best they're an asymmetric threat for thirdies and insurgents, more selective but less effective than IEDs.tl;dr 2020 drone stans are retards, 2000s drone stans are based
>>65380377US conclusions aftet WWII Naval combat:>only fight surface combatants would be doing is sending aircraft to kill enemy>only surface ships were need are carriers, floating AAA batteries and submarine hunters>tanks equivalent aka battleship are obsolete>we need as much AAA as possible (still gonna bet all our surface firepower on our aircraft because aircrafts are op)Comparing to that modern armies looking at drones didn't get the meme at all.
>>65380648notice you agree with my arguments
This entire argument could have been 50 years ago with the advent of ATGM's with exact same fucking talking points. ATGM's didn't remove the need for tanks and Drones sure as fuck won't either.This doesn't mean that Drones don't have to be adapted to, they're the 'new thing' on the modern battlefield and just like ATGM's they are something that Tank crews, attached infantry, planners etc will all have to take into account when they're planning/building/instructing their tanks and guys.Otherwise, while slavshit combusts at the drop of a hat, we have literal video evidence of a variety of western vehicles eating drone strikes and shrugging them off and continuing to operate. Bushmasters, Bradly, whatever. This doesn't mean they're totally invulnerable, but it does mean that a Drone is just something else to consider rather than it being the death knell of something that is literally proven to work.
>>65380526>Landwar isn't even comparable to naval warfarenot what I was getting at, I was comparing the evolution of technologies in warfare. The countering of surface fleet supremacy (the standard for military power for millennia) by making smaller cheaper aircraft take em out. Technology was developed and adapted to counter the counter. Think of it much like the design philosophy of the Leopard 1, where HEAT projectiles made armor near superfluous for a short time. So speed, target acquisition, and firepower was used instead until composite materials could effectively and reliably mitigate HEAT warheads.>>65380692I should clarify, it's not a 1:1 analogy, but it's effective as a layman's perspective when explaining to folks who don't understand how military technology and tactics develop over time>>65380887this anon makes a similar point
>>65380526>Tanks are about as heavy as they can beThat's not true, except everyone is playing follow-the-lemming with unitary air and rail mobile chassis. Detachable sponsons like the T28 assault tank or B/C-kit bolt-on armor are feasible, as are doctrinal changes like forward basing and acceptance of oversize-load logistics. Humanity routinely moves 200-ton electrical transformers and pre-cast bridge girders these days. Powertrains are no object either, with 4000hp turbodiesels in commercial service. Armor could get much, much larger if the will/need was there. To be clear, I don't mean to suggest these would ever be fielded on the scale of cold-war tank fleets. But an anvil for air and artillery fires to hammer on remains necessary, and increasing the scale of the tank remains a viable way to achieve that.
>>65378622Tanks are armored platforms for occupying areas. Artillery is an unarmored area denial platform. Artillery destroys structures and emplacements, tanks destroy infantry and vehicles. Completely different use cases for these two.
>>65378798May we see it?
>>65380377The battleship didn't go obsolete because carriers countered it (even though they did), it was because the carrier was so much better at delivering firepower over a long range via planes that there wasn't really anything for a battleship to do that it couldn't accomplish better, at longer range, and with less risk. Tanks and drones accomplish different tasks and have obvious benefits from being used together. Battlespace transparency works both ways, the enemy can see the cannons pointed at them, and you can see where to point the cannons. In that situation I'd rather be the one with more cannons. Also comparing land war and sea war directly like that is kinda retarded anyway. The ocean is fucking huge, and with a big-ass boat you can go anywhere you want. Direct confrontation is avoidable on the sea and inevitable on land.
>>65379710>NATOids just refuse to accept it because you're tank nerds??? its the slavshit tanks that are going extinct though lol
>>65380526>you can just make a bigger and more armored shipUnless you wanna spend trillions overhauling your ports and then break the fucking bank on the Panama and Suez Canals, this is an untrue statement.
>>65381098A point I neglected to cover was that the drones offer a relatively short window of effectiveness on the battlefield. Once a vehicle mountable automated defense system (APS if you will) can reliably lower drone effectiveness, the drones have to become faster and more sophisticated to overcome the APS. Wherein at that point the drones may become so expensive to operate that AT weapons like Javelin and NLAW become the bare minimum to overcome APS. I will admit that a tank mounted APS that can take out drones and missiles repeatedly with reliability on the battlefield is still a long ways off as far as I know. But it also means that the drone meta is short term
>>65378631Slavshit points and shoots. The fact that your PEQ/NSRE/Hootenany gimmick doesn't stick right on there mostly doesn't matter. Most white people rifle home defense is not night time break in, it's getting nogged in the middle of the day. People wake up next to pistols and shotguns.SHTF well some dumb thing is just gonna blow you up so, what?Rifle will always be pretty good. Many of them hit a chest at 200 yards, more than half the time.
>>65380611No, this is the mentality of a warthunder fag who has never picked up a fucking history book.Was it important that your tank could beat other tanks? Of course.Was that the only consideration? Fuck no lmao.There was a wide variety of tanks from light to heavy that would have had trouble taking out other tanks, the churchill being a good example.You’re a fucking moron.
>>65380725He doesn’t, in fact nobody does, because you’re fucking retarded.
>>65381167More important on that note, once you start adding all sorts of things to a drone to make it capable of breaching through a 2030’s tanks anti-drone measures, you’re back at square one, you will no longer have an inexpensive sub-1000 dollar weapon that can go over 40 kilometers and be wasted on any and anything it sees and still be a worthy expendature.Drones, as they are, statistically speaking, already have a very low rate of success.Droneniggers will gush over videos of a drone oneshotting a shitty russian tank with a pie-shaped bomb under the inhabitants, but even with russian designs, those instances are exceptionally rare. People on the ground are often reporting that it takes numerous attempts to kill a tank, sometimes even just to mobility kill it, but that continuity is rarely ever shown in drone videos.And that’s talking about the drones that actually reach their target, many either get jammed, shot (yes, that’s happening more and more often now, specialized rifle rounds are proving very effective at this) or just fail to find a target before running out of battery.All of these factors don’t matter as long as it’s a super cheap, simple drone that takes no time at all to manufacture.Once cheap countermeasures to these things enter the battlefield en-masse, that advantage is no longer there.drones are going to remain an important part of warfare, but droneniggers are retards hyped up on their own ego’s who think that military development is going to freeze conveniently for their midwit opinions. Either that or they’re thirdies that were hoping that dronemaxxing would finally allow them to beat those stupid rich people.
>>65381377check'dA possible outcome of the drone situation is that an effective APS system for the suicide drone threat AND missiles. it means tanks are even harder to kill for infantry. in theory. drones could be creating their own demise as effective direct AT weapons by accelerating APS development.
Drones are to tanks what Jeune École is to battleships. It can be very effective in low-level skirmishes. Difference is, a tank is not anywhere near to a battleship, it's more like a destroyer. We're at the point where they just had machine guns and fast-fire artillery against them, soon they will develop strategy to disable them before they even have a chance to get in range.
My reading of the evolution of drone/UCAV combat is that these machines are fundamentally just small aircraft and they should be evaluated as such. Just as ground forces get shredded without protection from mega-aircraft; they are also vulnerable without adequate protection from micro-aircraft. This protection could take many forms such as integrated countermeasures, escorting SHORAD units, or achieving localized tactical air superiority through the suppression of enemy air forces. Both sides in Putin's war are competing to devise the most efficient tactical and operational methods to employ micro-air power in support of ground forces. The most optimal methods may or may not be determined durring this conflict (much as mega-airpower took a generation of development before the Nazis leveraged it to compel a return to maneuver warfare). However, any military that DOES discover these methods will attain a tremendous military advantage against those that don't.
>>65381530This is relevant to tanks because their primary tactical asset is really their mobility. I think a return to maneuver warfare would make the tank a far more relevant unit then it has been thus far in Putin's War.
>>65381530>low-effort AIslop image
>>65381602The image illustrates air power's integral role in the success of blitzkrieg tactics you shallow, semi-literate, two-digit IQ having, untermensch.
>>65378622>There is no point to the tank anymoreSounds like the kinda thing a person without any tanks would say
>>65381618It adds nothing to your post and actively detracts from it. The image is:1. Marred by that distinctive machine-generated output that has the vague form-factor of the thing it's supposed to depict but, on close examination, is actually physically impossible and often indecipherable.2. The lowest of the low-tier infographic, depicting nothing of what role any component of blitzkrieg tactics actually served other than being present, unless you read the words3. Since the text is the only useful part of the image, why not just say what you wanted it to say, since I can't look at the image to get your point, I have to read the text within it?4. If the text is the only valuable part of this image, it could at least be aesthetically pleasing5. See Point 1.The only low IQ subhuman I see here is you, buddy.
>>65381618it doesnt illustrate shit other than hallucinations you retarded fucking ape, kill yourself
>>65381602Bad bait.
>>65381530>infantry assaultwhat the fuck, literally the main thing blitzkrieg tries to avoid and your AI bs still says to do it, lel
>>65381669Gee, I didn't consider it that way at the time. Please pardon me for posting this lazy sloppa image. I will try to do better next time. Do you have any thoughts on micro-airpower paradigm for drone warfare?
>>65381098>carrier was so much better at delivering firepower over a long range via planes that there wasn't really anything for a battleship to do that it couldn't accomplish better, at longer range, and with less risk.Drones to tanks are directly what carriers to battleships during WWII. Drones kill enemy tanks long before tank can engage tanks with "muh sabot". So tanks turn into cucks whose main job became soaking drone fire. Just like battleships.
>>65381167>A point I neglected to cover was that the drones offer a relatively short window of effectiveness on the battlefield. Once a vehicle mountable automated defense system (APS if you will) can reliably lower drone effectiveness,Funny thing right before WWII one Italian admiral during naval conference smugly declared that planes can't sink battleships. Battleships have so much guns they literally put "wall of metal in the air!!!!" And every attacking aircraft will smash against that. Several years before Taranti happened and Yamato was sunk.Funny isn't it?
>>65381346>There was a wide variety of tanks from light to heavy that would have had trouble taking out other tanks, the churchill being a good example.British abandoned Churchill tank in the favor of Centurion tank. Some history lessions for history denying vatniksDuring the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, a Soviet T-54A medium tank was driven onto the grounds of the British embassy in Budapest by the Hungarians in November. After a brief examination of this tank's armour and 100 mm gun, British officials decided that the 20-pounder was apparently incapable of defeating its frontal armour. This meant the most common British tanks were no longer able to effectively deal with Soviet medium tank designs, let alone their heavy tanks.These events spurred the United Kingdom to employ a new high-velocity tank gun in 1958, the Royal Ordnance L7 to keep existing Centurion tanks viable against this new Soviet tank design.
>>65381416>Difference is, a tank is not anywhere near to a battleship, it's more like a destroyer.Battleship is a tank Destroyer/AAA cruiser is a SPAAG.Learn the difference .
>>65381790Wrong, you didn’t read anything anyone posted in the thread and you’re a retard.
How come it's 2026 and people have yet to understand that offense vs defence is a cat and mouse game? The attacker (drone) will have an advantage at the start since the defence (tank) has yet to adapt to it. Give it some time and tanks will ne able to counter them either with something like an APS or a change in tactics. The defence is always playing catch up against every new threat regardless of if it's drones, ATGMs, shaoed charges, field guns or K rounds, yet people see this current advantage and conclude that no countermeasures will ever be made to defeat it.
>>65381813>N-NOOOOOO MUH BATTLESHIP COMPARISON MUH BATTLESHIP COMPARISON!!!What is it with droneniggers and obsessing over an imaginary historical connection that doesn’t exist?
>>65381820>y-you’re a vatnik if you’re not a dronenigger like me!That’s not how that works.>>65381822>battleship is a tankNope, it’s not. Trying to pretend naval warfare and mechanised land warfare are comparable in any way is really silly.
>>65381828Right see what guns and armor battleships, destroyers, tanks and SPAAGs carry.>muh 16 inch canun!
>>65381860>he’s still trying to act like his historical comparison makes any sense at all
>>65381867>muh 120mm sabouh!
>>65381832Drones being cheap enough for any nation to fling a bunch through the air has basically made us go through the same argument we had with ATGMs but with even more retarded third worlders. It feels like some people look at war like it's a game of starcraft and as long as your zerglings trade out cost effectively against their zealots you can just keep doing that until the map runs out of minerals and you win, so therefore the zealots must be useless. Of course cost always matters, but that's a retarded and reductive way to look at a videogame, let alone actual war.
>>65381618>>65381669>>65381734>engaging in any sort of serious doctrinal discussion with the term "blitzkrieg"You all failed from the word go, you tourists.
>>65381869>n-noRight, so tanks are not obsolete, glad we cleared that up.
>>65381832>”people” see this current advantageThere’s your problem.
>>65381098>Also comparing land war and sea war directly like that is kinda retarded anyway. The ocean is fucking huge, and with a big-ass boat you can go anywhere you want. Direct confrontation is avoidable on the sea and inevitable on land.Only we have exactly same changes like it was during WWII naval combat. When land Armies got organic and ubiquitous drones that outrange direct fire guns, combat turned into spam of these outranging gun drones and direct fire guns has no use for engaging enemy. Just like it Coral Sea battle.But there is big difference yeah. During WWII navies started to adopt to these tactics immediately and radically. Crash programs of increasing AAA armaments of existing ships (they got bolted like 3-4 times of small caliber AAA in a short order). And plain sheets designs they were cooking completely new level of performance tech, 5", 3" guns, in powered turrets aimed via computerized radar guided FCS. This is some real AAAmaxing.(and cancelled battleships building)But modern armies? They stomp their feet in denial instead.>muh tank is not obsolete! 3rd year of The Drone wars and what AA guns Abrams tanks have? Still same pintle mounted hand aimed machine guns lol>shoo shoo drones! go way!
>>65381969>5", 3" guns with VT fuse
>>65381969>Only we have exactly same changes like it was during WWII naval combatNo, we don’t. That’s what everyone’s been telling you.You’re a dumbass, and you’re seething hard that tanks are not obsolete, you’re clearly very emotionally invested in it.
>>65381974>No, we don’Yes we do. In Ukriane tanks die to drones before having opportunity engage enemy with main guns. Largest world tank fleet lost to Temu drones while pushing frontlines by 20 km.
>>65381982yesRussian tanksWith no countermeasures to drones yet.You’re a midwit who assumes that the arms race freezes at the point your tiny dronenigger brain is most comfortable with.Everyone is still buying tanks, making tanks, and evolving tanks, you’re shit outta luck.
>>65382087>You’re a midwit who assumes that the arms race freezes at the point your tiny dronenigger brain is most comfortable with.>Everyone is still buying tanks, making tanks, and evolving tanks,There is exactly zero (0) tanks with anti drones AAA guns installed exist right now.Imagine it's year 1945 and US Navy didn't bother to install a single AAA gun on battleships. This is what tankfags are doing.
>>65382117>y-yeah but right nooooowwww!!!!!!Lol>i-imagine>p-please imagine my incompatible historical comparison plssss pretty plsNo lol.
>>65382143>science will make my scenario possible because it has toSorry but Minovsky particles will never be real.
The persistent refusal of tankfags to consider anything but a tank vs drone matchup is very telling. My argument still stands: what is the point of a tank when drones can give artillery crews direct line of sight to a target without actually having to move anywhere near the enemy? Why is it so absolutely critical that they run the gauntlet in a tank so they are able to see and fire at the target in person? You putting them in danger for no reason when could be (more) safely hitting that exact same target from kilometers away via surveillance drones.
>>65382163What is the point of a artillery when Lancet drones can kill your 20 millions dollars SPG from 100 km away?
>>65382163>t-tankfagsThere are no “tankfags”, there are normal people and therw are droneniggers.>>65382162>my scenario is real because i’ve been making faulty historical comparisons all day!Nope, sorry dude.>my argument still standsYou haven’t actually made an argument the whole thread. You just wrongly assume why battleships were replaced by carriers and then try to pretend that WW2 era naval progression is the same as ground vehicles in the 21st century.Drones + arty cannot do what tanks do.
>>65382163>My argument still stands: what is the point of a tank when drones can give artillery crews direct line of sight to a target without actually having to move anywhere near the enemy?Latency. Coordination. The ability to force positions to unmask and allow their engagement.
>>65382169Lancets are not spammable the way artillery shells are.
>>65382194What latency? They have a live feed.
>>65378631is this some automated bot answer? wher are the leopard2s, abrams, challengers? ukraine has them, not seen by anybody for years now. ukraine is also not requesting any further tanks, only ifvs and apcs. should tell you everything.>>65378751>like trench killdozing.lol good luck killdozing through a minefield. i havent seen a single successful mine breaching assault in the entire ukraine war. absolutely every time even fucking dedicated mineplows get blown up by mines. so even if they finally manage to put an effective drone defense on tanks, which nobody has managed so far, the tank still has to face the unsolved mine issue. problems over problems.>>65378791>Curiously there's no drone footage of it yet. I???? all the ukie channels on youtube showed it. it just doesnt look any different from the videos of tanks getting rekt 2 years ago.
>>65382195$ 20 millions SPGs are not spammable the way Lancets are.
>>65382212It doesnt matter, it cant replace artillery fire.
>>65382195the days of spamming artillery shells are over. no tube artillery can afford to stay put for longer than a few minutes. the moment it stays still it becomes a target for rocket artillery, strike drones and even glide bombs. artillery is now down to legacy tubes hidden in some bushes and well camouflaged trenches, occasionally being used or the spgs, hidden in garages and barns 50km behind the frontline, occasionally driving into max range (20-30km) from the frontline, taking a few shots and then immediately fucking off again before an enemy lancet catches it. i think its save to say tube artillery is useless, obsolete, over.
>>65382214It can cancel artillery fire.
>>65382218Why don't tankfags put AAA guns on SPGs to shot down pesky drones? Navies during WWII put like 100-150 AAA barrels on their battleships to counter new aircraft meme.Why do tankfags adamantly refuse to adapt to a new era of warfare but instead just stomp their feet and throw tantrums every time they hear word drone?
>>65382199Latency between detection and effect on target.>be infantry supported only by drone corrected artillery>be seizing objective to hold>be engaged by previous concealed strongpoint>it cuts apart half a squad when it unmasks>best possible case for effect on a target is about 90 seconds>assuming the call for fire takes 0 seconds>assuming there are no errors>assuming there is a PGM on hand and you are not in the safety zone for it>assuming there is nothing to degrade the accuracy of the PGM>if it doesn't have the effect you need then you get to say "Repeat" and then wait another 30-60 secondsOr:>be infantry supported by tank>be engaged previously concealed strongpoint>it gets one man because you are mostly behind a tank>the tank immediately kills everyone inside with a shell>4 seconds later it puts another HE round into the position for good measure and collapses it>while all this was happening it was also suppressing other likely fire positions with its 3 machineguns...>inb4 attacking is deadSaying tanks are dead is the same as saying that attacking is dead, which is the same as saying that wars can no longer be won.
>>65382235>be infantry supported by tank>tank is burning 10 km away from frontlines after been hit by FPV drone>thee end>tankfags: "no, will NOT put AAA guns on tanks because drones are meme, ahaha"!
>>65382249>be dronefag>build a man out of straw>knock the man down>be gratified by prowess>repeat
>>65382235If the concealed strongpoint has anti-tank weapons then the tank dies before it can do anything, if it doesn't then an IFV could have eliminated it just as easily.
>>65382272>tankfags:>no you can't kill our $ 10 million tanks win $1000 with FPV drones because..., because you just can't! ok?>also tankfags: "no, we will NOT put AAA guns on tanks because drones are meme, ahaha"!
>>65382235>>be infantry supported by tankyou get attacked 20km away from the frontline already, because a tank is easily spottted and a high value enough target to basically cause news even in central command. every enemy unit in the area is aware a mechanized assault is going to unfold. enemy launches hellsings/lancets strike drones to engage your tank before it even reaches firing distance of the frontline. a swarm of fpvs is waiting to kill everything that survived the strike drones.i have no idea how this can be overcome, but simply saying "my tank will magically make it to the frontline and not be engaged by anything and even if, will just shrug off 30 hits and "killdoze" through minefields" is a bit delusional.
>>65382275Which contemporary tank is frontally penetrated by a direct fire infantry weapon?>be dronefag>build yet another man out of straw......
>>65382289FPV drone.
>>65382280>is a bit delusional.No it isn't. It's creating a situation that describes why we have tanks in the first place and why indirect fire support is qualitatively not the same as direct fire support. The fact that we aren't sure how to create that kind of situation right now is secondary to explaining why the tank is highly desirable in that situation and not replaceably by artillery in it, and explaining why it is necessary for that situation to exist for land battles to be winnable.
>>65382300Wrong, and not a direct fire weapon anyway.>be a dronefag>build yet another man out of straw>this time build a direct fire weapon out of fake straw as well........
>>65382302>The fact that we aren't sure how to create that kind of situation right now is secondarThere is Soveit anecdote regarding this>Soveit general during Staff meeting >I invented ultimate weapon!>Yeah? What is it?>it's black box with red button on it, you press red button and all enemies die>Woah!? And how does this thing work?>I don't know, let scientists figure out details!
>>65382303Why do you need direct weapon when you have FPV drone>no you can't hit roof if my tank with FPV drone! You must shot AT gun at my tank frontal armor!!!
>>65382308That anecdote is not at all equivalent to explaining why a given of engaging in direct combat implies the desirability of tanks.
>>65382310>be drone operator in strongpoint>be suppressed by artillery>artillery lifts as attack achieves break in>artillery still suppressing depth and mutual support positions>try to launch fpv very slow drone from strongpoint>die to the HE shell that gets pumped into the hole a drone just came out ofDrones are not a direct fire weapon.
>>65382327>drone position can be 10 km away from attack objective >try to suppress 10 km radius with artillery >failFPV drone > direct fire weapons
>>65382303I'm sure the tank crew will be very relieved to learn that they weren't killed by a direct fire weapon.
>>65382317>we invented ultimate weapon!>but we aren't sure how to create that kind of situationFor starters maybe start putting anti drone guns on tanks?>*tankfags start trashing in seizure*
Its interesting how in the mind of a tank supporter, every drone is a FPV drone.There are absolutely no drones other than this.lolEither way, tanks are going the way of the dodo because no one can afford to man them and suffer the human casualties from it. The only one's are China, which doesn't have the terrain for it, but does have the industry to make tanks. USA, which doesn't "need" them because airpower gg wp everything else.I
>>65382329>try to suppress 10 km radius with artilleryObviously no one would do that. Psyche, picrel of course that's exactly what you'd do if you weren't so hard pressed like Russia and the Ukraine are. Of course nowadays you wouldn't need to do all of it, you'd just do the areas you couldn't clear by observation.>>65382332I have no objection to that but have no interest in discussing it.
The reason why people don't put active antidrone defenses on tanks is cost. It's really fucking expensive, to the tune of several million dollars per tank. And a lot of current tank turret designs don't even have the space for something like an Allen Control Systems Bullfrog. All the prototypes with an integrated antidrone weapon (from a .50 cal MG to a 30mm AC) use clean sheet turret designs. None of which are yet in series production.
>>65382345And you supposed to hug barrage at 500-1000 m distance, too bad drones have more range than 1000 m and can hit you easy peasy even you walk/drive behind creeping barrage.
>>65382355>And a lot of current tank turret designs don't even have the space for something like an Allen Control Systems BullfrogJust take off these stupid pintle mounted machine guns and ridiculous chicken cages
>>65382345well that creates the next problem: how do you get that much artillery to the frontline undetected and protected from enemy rocket artillery, strike drones, long range fpvs, glide bombs? you cannot set up a whole battery of howitzers 20km away from the frontline and expect it to not get himarsed and lanceted and fpvd.
>>65382356You don't understand what you're talking about. Artillery, mortars and machineguns get you to break in, which is the point at which organic direct fires may be employed. Suppression of depth continues past that point. Past the point break in trying to use a drone would be suicidal.>>65382363>there's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear LizaNo shit, war isn't easy and winning requires orchestration and synchronisation of many complex things across time and space. None of this means that, to quote OP, "there is no point in tanks" or that "drone corrected artillery can do everything a tank can" etc as we cycle through any number of silly motherhood statements. No one contests that Russia and the Ukraine are not in a position to do better or to employ tanks better than they are right now, but again, that doesn't imply that tanks ought not exist.
I'm surprised that there hasn't been much discussion on /k/ in the archive about the US-manufactured Drone Round (https://dronerounddefense.com/product-information/), especially with the US Marines looking to acquire it in 5.56 (https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2026/u-s-marine-corps-seeks-5-56mm-l-variant-anti-drone-rounds-to-add-final-protective-layer-against-fpv-drone-threats). Currently, Drone Round Defense only produces it in 5.56 (the 7.62 NATO variant is still in testing), but NWSC Crane's Drone Killer Cartridge has already been tested in .50 BMG:https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article-View/Article/4408085/nswc-cranes-new-low-cost-drone-killer-cartridge-achieves-92-percent-kill-rate-i/https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/nswc-cranes-new-drone-killer-cartridge-dkc-technology-44826493Obviously, an M2 Browning CROWS with DKC doesn't make an Abrams FPV-proof, but it's better than only having a Trophy system and 120mm canister. Even if the Drone Round and DKC become widespread, I can definitely see FPV drones adapting by carrying a Claymore-style mine (to destroy the RWS for a second drone) or explosively formed penetrator instead of a shaped charge.Like >>65381832 said, it's a cat and mouse game.Also, image related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQvBZKsdAAc
>>65382384>that doesn't imply that tanks ought not exist.well what good is a weapon system that can only function in some niche roll, when it has the well orchestrated support of 20 other weapon systems, which have to help it perform and the enemy also has to lack certain capabilities or make major mistakes in order for it to work. basically all the stars have to align to make an mbt work in 2026.
>>65382386>shooting down drones?>we don't do this in tankermany
>>65382391>baby's first exposure to the fact that doing warfare well is hardNigger that's all militaries and everything in them. Even drones need a specific set of circumstances to exist (extremely static warfare, protection from air attack and persistent high altitude air surveillance, tenuous logistics to prevent mass in depth etc). The fact that the set of special circumstances that favor drones exists in the Ukraine doesn't mean that armored formations are some special snowflake capability that uniquely needs a blue moon eclipse to function.
>>65382391>a weapon system that can only function in some niche roll, when it has the well orchestrated support of 20 other weapon systemsDo you actually think they're supposed to solo an entire fucking war? Do you actually think drones can? Do you actually have a learning disability?
This whole discussion seems pointless to me. It’s obvious that tanks, just like manned military aircraft, are becoming obsolete. The real question is how quickly tanks will be replaced by remote-controlled or AI-controlled armored ground vehicles. One factor driving this development is the declining birth rate. Losing drones doesn’t result in sending your sons home in body bags or having whiny marxists protest in the street against your government.
>>65382421>AI-controlled armored ground vehiclesYou mean an uncrewed tank.
Anyway, pretty clear after all the impotent dronenigger screeching ITT that tanks are not obsolete.
>>65382421>It’s obvious that tanks, just like manned military aircraft, are becoming obsoleteThat's why everyone's stopped using and buying them, right?
>>65382435Noooo anon they compared tanks to battleships, after this genius-level display of intellect, you simply HAVE to agree with them!
>>65382405a wire guided fpv basically just needs a dude in a hole roughly in the vicinity of 20km away from the frontline. you dont see the fpv launch, it doesnt create smoke, it doesnt make a boom, it doesnt cause a radar contact, it has no ballistic flight curve that could be tracked, it cannot be jammed, it cannot be reliably intercepted unless another fpv drone spots it by chance or some guy with a shotgun gets lucky, its low cost, low maintenance, it cannot be traced back, it can fly behind or into cover, its slow enough to detect camouflaged and can literally pinpoint strike a 30cm diameter object 10km away. an fpv drone can literally fly into an enemy bunker and explode inside, no arty or tank shell can do that.thats a lot of solo power. compare that to the ukie mbt that drove up to a russian trench and had to roll forth and back and shoot its main gun into the ground because there was nothing else it could do against some dudes in a trench in the treeline.
>>65382391>niche roleThe niche role of… enabling maneuver warfare? Something that saves years of pain and suffering as well as economic damage?
>>65382445The niche scenario of the enemy ambushing at close range with heavy weapons from a concealed and fortified position, but not having access to any form of guided weapons or having any ability to attack from the flanks.
>>65382435>That's why everyone's stopped usingkek literally yes. both russians and ukies keep their tank way back and the only ones still buying them are countries that have a tank manufacturer at home "lobbying" the politicians to buy them. these sales are driven by kickback deals between tank manufacturers and politicians, not military need.
>>65382442>it doesn’t cause a radar contactIt actually does, but you’re doing the dronenigger thing of again assuming that nothing is being developed to deal with this very new threat.5 hours from now you’re still gonna be in this thread attacking strawmen and getting mad at the fact that tanks are not obsolete.
>>65382457>keep their tanks way backWrong lol>t-the only ones still buying themDronenigger, are you fucking deaf? EVERYONE is still buying them, you’ve had this explained to you numerous times, every single country that can afford tanks is buying them and development on new tanks for dealing with modern threats continues.you are just categorically in denial of the reality that a bunch of defense procurement people that are a lot smarter than you continue to demand more tanks, not less.Your ego has convinced you that you are ahead of the curve for insisting on this dumb opinion that you have, you are a midwit of the highest order.>nooooo everyone who’s actually in the military who still wants tanks is dumber than meeeee!you gotta check yourself before you wreck yourself.
>>65382452>the niche scenario of, this thing i just dreamt up in my headNo lol. They’re going to be useful in many scenario’s that are not that.
>>65382469Oh so I just dreamt up >>65382235 and >>65382289?
Wiesel 2 Autonomous Combat Warrior aka the Loli Drone Tank
>>65382467>EVERYONE is still buying themukraine isnt buying or requesting any new mbts. the only mbt related order theyve made is 30 new turrets for the leopard1.
The way drones buck broke the tank has to be studied.
>>65382501>the thing that happened inside my head has to he studiedNot for the reasons you think.
>>65382452>>65382482That's not that scenario at all but I assumed you knew how an attack works and I was clearly mistaken. The guided weapons don't get to engage until break in, at which point they are suicidal to use, the flanking positions are someone else's problem to suppress and clear and everyone stays in their lane. You dronefags are so tedious to talk to because you are convinced that you have deep and broad insight into warfare but literally don't even know how the simplest forms of infantry attack work or are structured by space, time or task. It's the purest repeating example of DKE I've ever seen.
>>65382442>thats a lot of solo powerdo you think war is like a team deathmatch game where you spawn in at a random position, get kills, then die happy knowing your team is going to win because you're ahead on points? How is that soldier getting to that hole in the ground? Fuck it, how did that front line get there, did everyone just throw a dart at a map and dig or did the front line of contact develop because the maneuver forces in front contacted an enemy? Surely you're not assuming the next war is going to start in a similar entrenched and attrited position UKR and RUS got to after a couple years of fighting, because that would be retarded. How are the drones getting there? Is he getting intel on where the enemy might be coming from or is he just looking around hoping to stumble on them? Are drones going to be your only ISR asset? Is your entire plan to cede initiative to the enemy and hope drones stop him dead? Does he have other lethal assets to spot for that can back him up or does he just really have to hope he doesn't miss or run out of drones? What's protecting those assets? How did they move to and claim their current position? Do you expect them to just drone everyone at a position and walk up and plant a flag unopposed? All the fighting in ukraine certainly doesn't make that look easy. We've had years of fighting in multiple theaters around the world to show us that a cheap and handy guided munition can't do everything by itself, and plenty of video evidence of them coordinating with "obsolete" ground assets to great effect. Guided munitions spam has been the best thing since sliced bread and it still hasn't obviated direct combat before now (see: Iran), it's not suddenly going to happen just because they're cheaper. War isn't so convenient that you can just slap cheap munitions everywhere and expect them to instantly delete everything that comes within range without support.
>>65382538>Guided munitions spam has been the best thing since sliced breadShow me guided minutions that can hit tank or soldier from 10km range, that cost $1000 and produced 1 million units per year.
>>65382538ntaWar is that convenient actually.Just nuke your enemy and you win. We have evolved past the practical need for war.Nuclear arms made war obsolete, but you need to sacrifice people for your jewish masters and the rich who own the ammunition factories need war to exist so they can make money off your death.
>>65379721>Dude, men with rifles have shot down military helicopters.
>>65382544>that cost $1000 and produced 1 million units per year.Wow, they've produced a million drones a year? Certainly they must have destroyed a million targets a year and sold off all of their other equipment for more drones since those are so cheap and good at everything, right? The advent of cheap drones has absolutely changed the face of war, but it's not the whole picture. If you make a drone that can do what a tank does you'll have made a remote controlled tank. >>65382546>War is that convenient actually.You might not be that retard, but you're still a retard.
>>65382560>No arguments.Nuking your enemy is quite literally the best option.Anything else is just population culling and enriching the rich.
>>65381015My nigga, the whole idea about tanks is to have a relatively fast maneuvering army. If you create monster tanks which can't even easily be shipped to the battlefield, then you've already lost the plot.
>>65381098>In that situation I'd rather be the one with more cannons.If you want cannons, then you need self-propelled arty, not tanks.
>>65382577>then you need self-propelled arty, not tanks.What if you had both? There's all these fun armaments that accomplish different tasks, if only there was some new whiz-bang concept where you could combine all of the strength of said armaments to accomplish a singular goal. Something where all of your air and land forces work together to win a battle. Maybe some kind of tactical plan for a mix of units. If only someone had thought of this before!
>>65382361Those machine guns are on top of hatches. If you put a roboturret on top of a hatch, where would the crew go when they want to leave the tank? You currently have 2 hatches for 3 people. You really don't want to go down to 1 hatch for 3.
>>65382591combined arms failed miserably in ukraine. for both sides! only led to massive losses. the main lesson of ukraine is that you should stick to what youre good at. for russians that is glide bombs, ballistic missiles and shaheed spam and for the ukies its their own drone spam. engaging the enemy on the frontline is the most stupid thing you can do. this is how you collapse for real.
>>65382625Because of the initial conditions present in that war.Drones are as effective as they are in ukraine as a result of a stalemate, not the other way around. The stalemate and thin frontline came before the mass adoption of small drones.
>>65382625>combined arms failed miserably in ukraine. for both sides!And they're both still doing it! Most of the drone footage you see for either force is cleanup after artillery, air, or direct firepower do most of the heavy lifting in blunting the attack. Ukraine would have been fucked if they weren't as willing as they were to jump headlong into drone warfare, and they would be just as fucked if that was their only trick.
>>65382642And a stalemate is the natural consequence of peer/near-peer conflict. Steamrolling only happens when you have a larger power fighting some congenitally retarded sandnog, like the US versus Saddam's Iraq.
>>65382649That’s not true at all, there are plenty of instances of equal powers gaining strategic footholds and rapidly changing the frontline through maneuver warfare.
>>65382649>And a stalemate is the natural consequence of peer/near-peer conflictIs it? We have a whopping one (1) example so far between poor eastern european shitholes, assuming the next war will start as an exact duplicate of the ukrainian war after years of fighting seems a bit shortsighted at best or willfully fucktarded at worst.
>>65382560>Wow, they've produced a million drones a year? Certainly they must have destroyed a million targets a yearYou should check amount of ammo US spent in the Desert Storm....
>>65382648I think something that mindbreaks a lot of these dronenigs and causes them overestimate their effectiveness is that bullets don’t have camera’s on them, artillery shells don’t have camera’s on them, missiles (mostly) don’t have camera’s on them, grenades don’t have camera’s on them.Drones all have fucking camera’s strapped to them, and their users do not upload all of the drones that failed to do fuckall.It’s one of the biggest cases of visibility bias i have ever seen.
>>65382670I am waiting with impatience when Trump will send American drafted zoomers to do thunder run on Teheran.They you can talk how to do maneuver warfare in the current year.When you humbly evade ground war yourself you kinda reinforce the point that tank rushes are over.
>>65382677Ukrianians film all engagements on frontlines wirn recon drones. FPV drone not only film their own videos, their hits are filem dfoen 3rd point of view. Same happens with artillery strikes, HIMARS strikes, vehicles combat, infantry combat etc. It's new era of warfare, not like during boomers era when they could make up fairly tales about their wins and heroism (like American Thunderbolt pilots over claimed German tank kills by 1000% in Normandy). Now everything is mercilessly recorded
>>65382677>It’s one of the biggest cases of visibility bias i have ever seen.I wonder if it's a divide between normies who are seeing all the shiny new drone footage for the first time and big old nerds who have been a longtime fan of war. It feels like those morons just don't have an appreciation for all the intricate moving parts that make the machine move. >>65382684>When you humbly evade ground war yourself you kinda reinforce the point that tank rushes are over.That is an interesting observation to take away from an air war that has pointedly failed to achieve its goals without a ground force to back it up.
>>65382689>ukranians film all engagementsWrong.
>>65382677>>65382648the ukies themselves report that 90% of their kills come from drones...there is no "most of the drone footage is just clean up" no, the drones are the main event.
>>65382695>That is an interesting observation to take away from an air war that has pointedly failed to achieve its goals without a ground force to back it up.Then you have job to do, Thunder Run on Teheran awaits.
>>65382699No, they report that 80% of visually confirmed hits are drones.
>>65381969>But modern armies? They stomp their feet in denial instead.Your assumptions are hinged entirely upon the technology for a vehicle mounted hard counter to suicide drones will never come about. Even if it was produced en masse and distributed to units in 2035, the actual effective window for suicide drones would have only been ~20 years. Afterwards, suicide drones still be used in limited capacities against targets of opportunities, but will not likely be as ubiquitous in the AT role as they are currently. As an observation/recon element I suspect they'll be in common use in warfare here on out though
>>65382748then you would still have the mine problem. everybody now has seen that its impossible for tanks to go through mine fields.
>>65382770>everybody now has seen that its impossible for tanks to go through mine fieldsshame that mines were invented in 2022 and no one has thought of a way to deal with them
>>65382782The way to deal with them is probably with drones.One guy popping them with a stick like i've seen in the Ukranian war is not as effective as a drone doing it. Because you know, zero risk for human life. nta
>>65378751artillery is not as mobile as armor is either
>>65382782>no one has thought of a way to deal with themthe ways to deal with them that had been though up, failed in spectacular fashion in ukraine. ive seen mine plows on both sides explode alongside the tanks that were carrying them, in vuhledar one mineplow got literally airborne and then half a second later the tank got hit by a mine. and those line charges are just too short for any sort of meaningful mine clearance.
>>65382841Crazy how the united states rolled straight Iraqis vaunted minefield and defensive lines... twice.
>>65382235wars have never been won or lost on the battlefield so what we fight them with has never mattered and how we fight them has never mattered. tanks are dead and they never mattered
>>65382854i highly doubt that. show me a video of an abrams crossing a minefield in iraq.
>>65382623Just go the Merkava route: big-ass exit hatch at the rear.
>>65382386Honestly, shooting down the drone is the easy part. It is so easy that a Russian conscript can sometimes pull it off. The tricky part is detecting the drone before it gets close enough to put an EFP through the roof of your vehicle. Fancy ammo that makes shooting down drones a little easier once a gun is trained on them is fine and dandy, but detection and tracking is where the real challenges are.
>>65382770No? That’s not true at all.Seriously dude wtf are you smoking.
>>65382877>i am a retardYeah, we already knew that.
Tanks already have top-mounted CROWS systems, it would be trivial to mount a new VT-fuze weapon in it with computerized target acquisition.
>>65382877Holy shit youre fucking stupid
>>65378622>Tanks in Ukraine: return to dispersed SPG direct fire support in static defense, switching prepared positions frequently; primarily APC/IFV 'battle taxi' overmatch deterrent; intermediate option when mortars can't engage and artillery isn't available Indirect talk fire's also used. The preparatory shaping work is just more extensive and protracted to have the kind of artillery & surveillance & & air coverage in depth to attempt taking ground quickly and deeply (and concentrating prior without detection or ability to intervene). The lighter and more dispersed infantry has to be for survivability, the more armor has decisive effect once the conditions for more conventional maneuver warfare's been set. What will be interesting in offense and defense at the tactical scale will be tiny drone AWACS, SAA, and mortar carriers (capable of defeating top tank armor with larger rounds repeatedly and reliably).
>>65383210>it would be trivial to mount a new VT-fuze weapon in it with computerized target acquisition.Except boomers, Biden and Trump admin are LITERALLY SHAKING at any suggestions of equipping tank fleet with viable anti drone systems >muh air superiority! >muh slavs irrelevant conflict!>muh high power DIRECT FIRE fire cannon!See thread above..
>>65383264>and mortar carriers (capable of defeating top tank armor with larger rounds repeatedly and reliably).These called are FPV drones, silly.
>>65379638So you're going to replace one delay with another? If artillery has their own spotting drones and are going to apply their fires autonomously, they're still going to have to notify forwards elements that they're going to fire, and wait for a response. And then the forwards elements are probably going to need a bit of time to come up with a tactic to take advantage of the fires, and to make sure that no unit is about to manoeuvre right into the barrage before they give the go-ahead.Also it's nowhere near a guarantee that a constant feed of the battlefield is going to exist. ECM is a thing, DEW are (going to be) a thing, and availability and coverage are a thing.
>>65383581No, you aren't. The other benefit of drones is they're proactive not reactive, and they're inexpensive. You don't send them out later in reaction to something, you send a constant stream of them out first as scouts around the clock.
>>65383606Yes, you are. Drones are not omnipresent, they can be shot down, jammed, they have range limitations, and they can reveal your presence. And like I said, even if you have a constant stream of drones, you're still going to have to have a request based system, which by necessity induces a delay.
>>65383502>see thread above>where i humiliated myself repeating the same silly talking points over and over again, not once convincing anyone that the tank is obsolete.
>>65382591>What if you had both?What for? To have less of things? Life isn't a videogame, you have constraints and limits. You can't have everything in fucked up numbers. If you have tanks and SPGs, then you have less SPGs.
>>65382642>Drones are as effective as they are in ukraine as a result of a stalemateTell that to US shit getting blown up in in the Gulf or russian shit getting blown up in Africa.
>>65382696Nah, he's right. Ukies do record everything they can, they just don't publish everything for a multitude of reasons.
>>65382670>We have a whopping one (1) example so far between poor eastern european shitholesI like how you fags have retconned russia with your revisionism as being an africa tier shithole, despite tens of thousands of tanks, airforce, satellite recon, nukes and other crap you faggots fapped to for decades before the post-2022 embarrassment revisionism kicked in. What next, you'll say that ukies were always a military superpower (like some cope already in russia)?
>>65383988>retconned russia with your revisionism as being an africa tier shitholeThat's not a retcon. "Russia is Africa with snow" is a meme probably older than you are.
>>65382748>Your assumptions are hinged entirely upon the technology for a vehicle mounted hard counter to suicide drones will never come about"Your assumptions of the aircraft killing the battleship are hinged entirely upon the technology for a battleship mounted hard counter to aircraft attacks will never come about" - this is what you're coping right now about. No amount of AA and other crap got battleships back into relevance. You fail to realize that drones are fundamentally extra-cheap, extra maneuverable, easy to field and deploy precision munitions which can be deployed in fucked up numbers for pennies, easily overwhelming any retarded "drone counter" which isn't some sci-fi laser turret, which you can't put on any vehicle due to power constraints.
>>65384009Your reading comprehension is lacking. You are so caught up on the "battleship" part of the analogy that you outright dismiss what I was trying to say, which is that technological development will eventually mitigate the effectiveness of suicide drones. On top of that, you appear to think that counters are not being developed as we speak. The EW sphere alone has spoken of the attempts to counter drones in a manner effective enough to create further sophisticated drones to ensure target strikes. Fiber-optics, AI fire-and-forget features, and multi-band frequency hopping has made drones usage in warfare much more complicated than it was in 2022. For how much longer will drones be effective as they are? 5 years? 15? 50? Are you envisioning a future where suicide drones are the only method of warfare? I can see what you're implying, but it doesn't make any sense considering technological progression in general and in the context of warfare
>>65381832>It’s a cat and mouse game bro>He just needs more time broThe Ukraine war has been going on for longer than WW2.Hello? Has a counter emerged? No? Wake up.>Well erm, the Ukraine War doesn’t count because they are le slavs and are le stupid and they aren’t doing their war properly because they’re not doing things the way i expect them to be in my head.Wake up. The world has changed.
>third world lives mean nothing to their government nor yours>killing enemy forces is therefor worthless unless in pursuit of another objective>rapid victory is necessitated in order to win>rapid means applied combined arms>massed land formations are the preferred prey of aircraft>air dominance means that massed enemy formations must disperse or risk destruction>dispersed formations cannot effectively maneuver nor defend>your formations can mass and maneuver freely under the umbrella of airpower>massed formations easily punch through dispersed defending ones>maneuvering formations mangle the enemy and quickly move to something actually worth capturing/destroying>winUkraine lacks airpower, and the US refuses to put boots on the ground, so the combined arms paradigm doesn't work, which leads to attritional warfare, which infinitely favors the thirdie. If Ukraine had had what they needed to assume air dominance, this war would've been over in a year or two. I'm so fucking sick of normie recency bias.
>>65384204>The Ukraine war has been going on for longer than WW2.>Hello? Has a counter emerged? No? Wake up.This is false equivalence, because in both world wars the principal combatants were also the preeminent powers of the day in all regards. Economically, industrially, intellectually, and philosophically. Just because the Ukraine-Russian War is the largest land war in Europe since WWII, does not mean the same level of resources is being poured into it. All MBTs lost in the current conflict still dont equate to the number of just T-34's lost in combat during WWII. I mean, shoot, Ukraine started this war with no domestic cruise missile industrial capacity and here they are pumping out FP-5's to nail 1500km+ targets now. Meanwhile the Russians are scraping the bottom of the barrel for MBT hulls to turn into turtle tanks. Those two factors indicate the scale they are working at
>>65384228Recency bias should be a hanging offense. 90% of terrible ideas could be strangled in the cradle if we could actually train it out of retards who think time started when they were born.
>>65384501>>65384228>recency biasYes, let's continue fapping to retarded shit which became obsolete.
>>65384623>t. desperate thirdie hoping drones will make them relevant
>>65384228good post
>>65383967Long-range strike is not comparable to the mass use of small drones at a tactical level retard.>>65383988>noooo russian tanks are good!!No, and he vast majority of their early war “good” stock did not get destroyed by drones.>africa tier shitholeOpinions change based on new information, turns out russians were always snowniggers.>>65384009>noooooo muh aircraft battleshipYou realize when you repeat this completely retarded line of thinking 1000 times in one thread you just start getting laughed at and ignored right? Tanks are not analogous to battleships, end of story. >fundamentallyNo, not fundamentally, because there is nothing to counter them cheaply en-masse yet, which is currently being worked on. The moment these drones need to be modified to deal with those defenses is the moment they stop having 40 km ranges and being really fast and nimble, as well as cheap and easy to produce.>e-easily overwhelming any drone counterTalking to droneniggers is like talking to a fucking toddler, you’re pathetically retarded and simpleminded.
>>65384204>noooooo it’s only allowed to take under a certain number of yeaaars!!!You are a retard and your opinion is wrong.>t-the world has changedAnd not in the way you think it has, midwit.
>>65384228>refuses to put boots on the groundFor political reasons, not because of drones lmao.>>65384623Dronenigger, you’ve been seething that you lost the argument for multiple days now, are you ever going to stop whining?
>>65384935>Long-range strike is not comparable to the mass use of small drones at a tactical level retardUS was forced to evacuate green zone fortress in Baghdad because of small short range drones attacks. That is small scale rehersal of failure that awaits US military it they will try to put boots on the ground.
>>65378622>Because Russia/Brown/Slavic nation is fucking retarded and cant use X correctly. Does that mean X is obsolete????Jfc....
>>65384069>For how much longer will drones be effective as they are?With hubris and ignorance tankfags demonstrate in this thread looks like forever. Here tankfags do everything and whine how drones are irrelevant and not suggest ways for tanks to adapt to drone threat.
>>65384947Literally 1905 Rus-Jap war moment.>irrelevant barbarians fighting real European war would not be like thi..ACK!Americans laughed at Shaheds but now they can't stop them from attacking ships in the Persian Gulf.
>>65384953>muh Shahed!!!!Congrats, you hit a slow moving tankerYou're brown.
>>65384959To be fair the delivery platform can be upgraded to any type of sensor package that will get cheaper in the future.It's naive to ignore the advantages of modern low cost high return weaponry when they get upgraded with 4k image sensors for 30cents a pop and a chip that can self indentify targets for 15.
>>65379964Any scenario where you think drones are counterable but bombs from planes and artillery shells are not is laughable.Drones can haul those exact same munitions but cheaper, they can even haul accelerating munitions from high vantage points. Even if you protect from direct impact they will hit you with EFPs. Drones in number will outkill and out cost ratio any tank except under the most extreme of perfect air defence by a combined localised force.Modern drone warfare will proliferate until static guns can pop drones out of the sky for cheaper than they can be manufactured with near 100% accuracy against multiple targets. And even if we get to that point, they will just attack from outside the guns effective range with drops of munitions and EFPsThey are the modern cheap launch platform, you are just arguing about the effectiveness of RPG warheads on drones, not the effectiveness of drones.
>>65384959Yeah.And the beauty of it?You literally can't do anything about Iran hitting ships in Persian Gulf, all American military might is powerless against humble Shaheds.
>>65385052Are they ever going to try to sink a US ship with them or is it going to be Civilian targets?
>>65384952>t-tankfagsDon’t exist, there’s just normal people and you, the dronenigger, having a melty.
>>65384946And other fantasies you can tell yourself.
>>65384953>noooo you have to believe me it’s just like [insert arbitrary historical comparison here]You’re like ziggers who say their war is just like ww2 because russia is on the east side and the other on the west side.
>>65385050>drones can haul 500 pounders>"accelerating munitions from high vantage points">EFPs are standoff munitions nowYour money is wasted on that GPT plan Rajeesh.
>>65385050Hear me outAI controllerd mini drone fighters armed with micro machine guns https://tubedubber.com/?q=eHya6Uf0M78:VIN4jxgzwik:0:100:15:0:1
>>65385081He’s been having a melty about this for multiple days straight lol. Droneniggers, god’s funniest mistake.
>>65385081>>EFPs are standoff munitions nowSensor fused munitions EFP warheads have range up to 150 meters.
>>65385041Cheap relative to what?It costs Iran ~$20,000 to make a single kamikaze drone. That's cheap for western economy but very expensive for theirs. And since they can no longer sell any Oil, the price is climbing for them as their economy continues to collapse.
>>65385099It’s likely more expensive than that, btw.
>>65385100I was just going with the "low" estimate.
>>65385073So what are you suggestions how to adopt AFVs to drone warfare environment?Besides coping and seething.
>>65385099
>>65382435Yes I'm sure the country that passed the BRRRT act would never hold onto an obsolete platform out of nostalgia and memes.
>>65385129okay brown.
>>65379811>They weren't, the US used them both as massive bombardment units for landing operations and nigh unsinkable anti-air platforms.That’s not a battleships intended role though. Thats just cope. A purpose built craft would be infinitely better than forcing battleships as AA platforms.
>>65385123You’d have seen some of them if you actually read the thread and didn’t spend the last few days crying and spamming your tanks are battleships cope.
>>65384935>Long-range strike is not comparable to the mass use of small dronesIt is. It's the same issue of "cheap mass shit" overwhelming retarded old thinking military. >because there is nothing to counter them cheaply en-masse yet, which is currently being worked onMy "but I had my breakfast" friend, please describe what could even counter them which doesn't exist now, but could be made. You have imagination, right? Because all the realistic systems which people mention are impractical and/or unfeasible IRL due to physical constraints. >The moment these drones need to be modified to deal with those defenses is the moment they stop having 40 km ranges and being really fast and nimble, as well as cheap and easy to produce.You are wrong. The value gap between the systems is so giant that drones becoming 2-5-10 times more expensive doesn't create an issue at all. That's how people moved from Mavics dropping grenades to having FPVs. That's how things moved from dropping a hand grenade to having custom drone charges (shape charges, anti-personnel charges, etc). That's how we got FPVs with thermals. That's how we got fiber-optics based FPVs. And a lot more shit, like larger wing-based drones compared to basic FPVs. You have no idea about the iteration and realities of the drone field, you knowledge is surface-based myths regurgitated by retarded e-celebs at best.
>>65381167>it also means that the drone meta is short termNo, the drone meta is non-existent.It's like saying there was a machete meta in the 90s.What third world retards do is not the meta. It's just casual retards niggering around with the cheapest shit they can get
>>65386028This attitude is what is going to get your Muh Reens blown up by kamikaze drones when The Orange One finally snaps and orders a ground assault.
>>65384623These tank uncs will talk about ‘recency bias’ and spend the whole thread splitting hairs about naval ships in WW2.Then when you point out the Ukraine war has been going for longer than WW2 did with no drone counter in sight they have a melty.
>>65386135>uncsTry an actual book for once and maybe your reading comprehension will improve, zoomer. Ukraine and Russia are only stuck in trench hell because they lacked the tools they needed to avoid it to begin with.
>>65381127The Nimitz can't go through the Panama Canal.
>>65386188>because they lacked the tools they needed to avoid it to begin with.Such as…? Because early war yoy had Russian and Ukrainian jets doing low passes, attack choppers strafing highways, amassed artillery bombardment, and everything else short of anthrax being dropped.
>>65386376Having done something once with a low amount of airframes doesn't mean you control the air theater.
>>65386376see >>65384228 >>65386410If the Ukrainians had control of the air, Russians would've been thrown back over the border, and it probably would've descended back down to the level of occasional skirmishes. This only became a trench war specifically because nobody can mount a proper superiority campaign, just like every other modern war where that was the case. The Iran-Iraq War is the rule, not the exception without seizing the air.
>>65386028Drones have hit Usa in the near east too. Denying their cost effectiveness is simply stupid.
>>65386013It isn’t, also APKWS works great against shitheads, the US just needs to build more of them lol>t-they’re infeasibleThey’re not, you’re just mad that military development isn’t freezing in dronenigger fantasy land.>y-you are wrongI am 100% rightProtecting a drone from getting cooked by a microwave would render it slow and without much range, among many other systems people are working on to take out drones for less than the cost it took to build them.You have severe dronenigger mental illness.
>>65386135>t-tank uncsI think you mean “everyone who laughs at my delusions”.You’re all alone in this, and you’ve been seething for days.
>>65379743Ukrainians are still using tanks as idirect fire gun platforms because they are sturdier and more mobile than spgs and can deliver higher volume of damage than a fps drones, furthemore, the initial success of the Kursk incursion was thanks to NATO armored columns lead by tanks precisely taking advantage of a weakness within russian frontlines which allowed them to work as intended and forced Russia to redirect reserves away from Dombass, effectively ensuring the current crawling rate we are looking now.
>>65386659So, will this be named the Third Tank Battle of Kursk?
>>65378622Tanks have bad logistics compared to drone carriers and no amount of cope about updated point defenses will change that.
>>65384936>”Heh, yeah, you could totally develop counters to drones. They aren’t that big of a deal.”>Woah woah woah, I never said it would be done in only a few years!>We just need to wait decades for a counter to materialize, then we win!Yeah sorry, I’m going to pick the side that has a working force multiplier today.Rather than dismiss it for whatever the fuck decades long plan you’ve got in that noggin of yours unc.
>>65386013>please describe what could even counter them which doesn't exist now, but could be madeDistributed multispectral sensor networks with autonomous target queuing and a mix of hard kill laser and small caliber cannon SHORAD and APS.Small drones can be efficiently hard killed by lasers, but larger and faster strike "drones" (which are just cheap cruise missiles) require more kinetic solutions to achieve acceptably fast kills. The detection and targetting problems we presently see are caused by a lack of networked sensors and density at the tactical level, not any kind of technological limitations. If a country like China or America went onto a war footing they could reorganise and reequip their forces to be very survivable against current and immediately forseeable drones, but no one is rushing to make thr large investments necessary to counter an emerging technology.To use the Spanish Civil War-Ukraine analogy that droneniggers are fond of, building dronss and drone counters now would be like spamming dive bombers and flak guns - great for war in 1939 and nearly totally obsolete by 1945 because of jets, radar and missiles. Developed countries are not in a war right now and can afford to wait for the technologies to mature to try to skip to strategic jet bombers ans SAMs and not waste investment.
>>65386832How much territory have drones taken? Which side with drones won a war?
>>65386892What side without drones has won a war against one with? How would getting rid of their best killing machines make Russia or Ukraine more effective in combat?
>>65386832To be fair, the GWOT types were pushing drones before it was cool, and the DARPA types were doing it before we were born.
>>65386903Nice non-answer, how about the first question?
This powerpoint explains the argument for FPVs and midstrike drones better than most drone fans will. It was made by a balding air force officer in 2005. I'll post the two key slides.
>>65386920FPVs give constant area denial.
>>65386922FPVs are already on the attack, compared to relatively reactive units like tanks, because they're cheap, give combined scouting and attack, and they fly.
>>65386919How much territory have ICBMs taken? Guess they're unimportant too.
>>65386930icbms or drones won't keep the enemy infantry from just walking up on you
>>65386936FPVs are doing that in Ukraine daily. Yes, they haven't utterly made infantry totally obsolete, but they are a battlefield-changing weapon like the machinegun was.
>>65386948>tanks are obsolete>infantry is obsoleteYeah, this thread sure is convincing.
>>65386928>already on the attackNo, they aren't. Drones have not conducted a single offensive operation in the entire war. They have not seized a single objective or piece of ground, because they cannot. You need to brush up on your fundamentals of tactics, because killing things and denying ground are not offensive tactical tasks.
>>65386892NTA, but the Azerjannies pretty much swept Nagorno-Karabakh with Turkroach drones.
>>65386903What the fuck is Hendrick Motorsports doing making drone carriers?
>>65386928Why is the balding Air Force officer using dog images to illustrate his point?
>>65378622>i am using something poorly >the fault must be at the thing and not me! Ego status: saved
>>65386505A superiority campaign is expensive and you dont have enough bombs to stop a determined enemy sending in 500x3 infiltration groups within a reasomable timeframe.
>>65387020It’s crazy how his only argument is “muh battleships” and he thinks it works better if he just repeats it as much as possible.
>>65386832>u-uncSo the same screeching you’ve been doing the whole thread, no actual argument.I accept your concession, tanks are not obsolete.
>>65386905>t-this is happeningIt isn’t.
>>65378622Ukrainian propaganda is getting a bit annoying at this point. Good luck at retaking lost oblast without an armoured push .
>>65385081Calling people AI and Indian wont stop me being right. I am a little tired of being called indian just because I recognise the future utility of drones in combat alongside their cost effectiveness as a platform to deliver explosives in basically any form to an enemy from either a carrier or an infantryman.Drones are a platform that cannot be stopped by merely mounting short range effective defense, they will be able to attack from outside any effective envelope you create, or in numbers you cannot cope with, it's just like any other weapon delivery system but cheaper logistically.Unless you are in a flat desert drones will sneak up on you freely and be able to attack you in some fashion regardless, you could argue you could use preplanted sound sensor nets for detection sure but that's beyond the scope and well beyond your posts worthiness to talk about.EFPs can be used from distance, the are extremely effective are we going to ignore BONUS etc.Tanks will become indirect fire support by nature for a very long time, there are multiple iterations of drones that could happen within a war, but also peer to peer MLRS is only getting more integrated with drones that will make it even more risky to bring metal bawkses into the fray, tanks are just too juicy a target for the cost they take to kill, they need to cheaper, not more expensive. The only reason to implement antidrone measures for tank viability is if you're fighting in sandbox wars with weak opponents or civilians, they will not survive peer conflict.>>65385085Don't lose your bowl, mom said there were cheerios on the floor you can have.>>65385082Kek, here me out, drones carrying guns that fire chainsaw bullets that fire mini sandwiches.
>>65387867>drone op center and factory gets deleted by a jdam and tomahawkOMG GUIZE DRONES ARE OBSOLETE!
>>65387867>w-won’t stop me from being right!Nobody needs to “stop” you from being right, you’re already wrong lol.
>>65387867Cont.The only effective defense and viable offense operation for tanks in the modern era are within a non-porous counterdrone defensive envelopes. To station teams ahead and beside the tank by a few KM that are designed to be attritional, entirely designed for deleting drones, this is expensive but neccesary for other operations anyway, and these hypothetical attritable defenses need to be cheaper operationally than the drones they shoot down in the first place so it's a stretch, but maybe possible with further sensor integration and a cost reduction in unmanned counter drone systems (kinetic, efps used against drones, mounted gun turrets, jamming, etc)I forsee a reduction in tank production, and an increase in mortar and artillery vehicles in the next 30 years, the tank is useful still to be used as the cost is paid, but it is no longer cost effective due to the cost of the asset itself and the risk that it is placed under.The medium to long range artillery vehicle is the new tank.
>>65387877You are dumb as shit. Iran is defeated, the war is over is it, with all those JDAMs and dead ops centers.Ukrainians have been hit by tens of thousands of accurate long range cruise missiles at this point and they're still going.Drone production can be decentralisedSo can the places that launch the drones.Air superiority matters, but the cost is insane for effect, it is best used for HVTs it cannot win you a war alone.>>65387878Yeah no argument.
>>65387899Yep, droneniggers have no argument, they repeat the same set of disspelled cookie cutter memes over and over and deman they be taken seriously and argued against 10x in a row.
>>65387903You are baiting to hit thread limit with no argument seethe.Kill yourself.
>>65387892>a non-porous counterdrone defensive envelopes. To station teams ahead and beside the tank by a few KM that are designed to be attritional, entirely designed for deleting drones,Hear me out: >>65385082
>>65382235>wars can no longer be wonThis is it. This is the answer. You got it.
>>65387136https://www.politico.eu/article/volodymyr-zelenskyy-robotic-systems-russia-army-positions-ukraine/
