Is mechanizes warfare dead as drones continue to evolve and improve?
Yes
No
Maybe
It's hard to explain. Just know that mechanical elves run the universe.
>>65400428Drones and ugv need a lot less armor on the carrier
>>65400428If tanks can actually close the distance they're the most efficient way at scything down drone carriers en-mass, it's just getting them there that proves to be the issue. It's the same problem they faced in WWI with artillery.
I don't understand the question
Mechanizes has never been more alive.
>>65400429>>65400432>>65400436I don't know. Can you repeat the question...
>>65400428So does nobody ever proof read their posts anymore or is /k/ unironically being swarmed 24/7 by ESL, low-tier propagandists?
>>65401547Likely a combination of both, I won't pretend I don't make the occasional typo, but I least try to proofread.
>>65400428Drones and heavy sniper use are symptoms of static lines or asymetric warfare. They are both basically the same thing.
mechanised warfare will soon be off the table for Russia due to drones anyway06.08.2026Tanks — 12246 (+4)Armored fighting vehicle — 25087 (+3)Artillery systems — 47455 (+59)MLRS — 2006 (+4)Anti-aircraft warfare — 1547 (+7)Planes — 439Helicopters — 354Ground robotic systems — 2138 (+4)UAV — 446266 (+1811)Cruise missiles — 5007Ships (boats) — 34Submarines — 2Cars and cisterns — 130682 (+416)Special equipment — 4496 (+1)Military personnel — aprx. 1454210 people (+1330)
>>65400428Drone warfare is when you cant afford AA autocannons and EW.
>>65400428Context & C-UAS OP.Context:>When the battlefield is static where positions are entrenched and known, often not far from each other while drone teams are in developed positions e.g. bunkers with stockpiles of drones and constant resupplyDrones can be highly effective. You know where to send them and you have a lot of them and have the ability to spam them.>Operations are more hasty/fluid. Meeting engagements are more common with only hasty positions existing. Enemy forces can be dozens of kilometers away, constantly changing positions and hidden. You don't know where they are or where they're going and if you find them they are prone to relocate. Drone teams have whatever they can carry or whatever can fit in the back of the truck and resupply can be shaky and low throughput with zero stockpilingDrone warfare can become at best a support asset and at worst completely useless. If you can suppress and obscure the breach long enough to be able to effectively exploit said breach through enemy lines and force back maneuver warfare than drones take a back seat.C-UAS>No country has yet to field widespread countermeasures beyond basic EW>Future AFV's and dismounted elements can have C-UAS countermeasures that can make them exponentially harder to kill via drones>Dedicated SHORAD with dedicated C-UAS capabilities from high energy lasers to air bursting auto cannons to cheap missiles and also drones made specifically to detect and kill enemy drones can and most likely will be heavily integrated into future formations If anything, mechanized forces could become the hardest formations to destroy via drones since they already have heavy support, powerplants and vehicle platforms to integrate C-UAS systems.It should also be said that both Ukraine and Russia have both proven to be pretty dogshit at combined arms warfare in general. While there are lessons to be learned, there are a lot of bad habits to be picked up as well.
>>65401584>Ukraine and Russia have both proven to be pretty dogshit at combined arms warfare in generalThat may be true of Russia but Ukraine has been outstanding in coutering Russia, most people thought that Ukraine would be overrun within a year maximum and devolve into partisan warfare and an eternal war that way. At every point Ukraine has been incredibe in dealing with the Russian military against overwhealming odds and numbers, even when the US stabbed them and their EU supporters in the back..The fact is Ukraine did what the USA completely failed to do in 50 years of cold war, completely obliterated the Russian military stockpiles which were vast. In fact the US let Russia completely fuck and muder it's own people in Vietnam and Korea and did NOTHING because the USA was too spineless to. In fact Americans like Jane Fonda even went to North Vietnam and celebrated them tirturing US pows. You see the same shit with some of the current US population fanboying for Putin and buying into anti_Europeanism. The US needs a new joe McCarthy to weed out and jail all the kremlin vermin infesting the US..
>>65401642Do you really think it's because Ukraine has some incredible fighting force or do you think maybe its because the US primarily has been giving it multiple times the Russian defense budget each year while also operating high value assets from patriot missiles to the entirety of US ISR assets? Ukraine would've absolutely had folded months into the war if it wasn't propped up entirely by Uncle Sam.
>thinly veiled “both sides are le bad” neutroolera rare sight these days, nearly extinct on /k/
>>65401785>>>/pol/
>>65401563https://fronts.co/article/deconstructing-the-myth-that-russia-is-running-out-of-armour/You ve been saying this for the past 2weeks per 200
Either way it's dead for the Russians since they don't have the mechanization to do mechanized warfare anymore.I must say we should be cautious in drawing conclusions from the war in Ukraine, they are fundamentally cold war armies with poor training, outdated and insufficient weaponry and underwhelming airforces.Drones had a massive disruptive effect in these conditions. That being said drone attrition rates are already approaching 90%, counter measure and EW are constantly improving and both sides are constantly adapting to the changing circumstances. Suppose that trend continues to climb above 90% and the dynamics will change again. It's a constant arms race and evolution of systems.
>>65402336Having a tank permanently in a shed doing nothing but collecting dust is functionally identical to it having been taken out of the fight.
>>65401667>$195 billion in total appropriations and spending related to the war in Ukraine and Operation Atlantic Resolve. >According to official data [...] $177.8 billion of that total has been formally obligated, and $116 billion has been fully disbursed.195 billion with ~116 billion disbursed in 4 years. That's a cool $30 billion per year so far.>Total federal funding for the war and defense hit about 16 trillion roubles, or roughly 6.3% to 7.5% of GDP (with some independent intelligence estimates placing total real economic allocation closer to 10% when hidden items are factored in).That puts the Russian military spending for 2025 at roughly $181 billion.Russia spent more in a year than the US did over the course of 4 years. Now that's how you spend tax payers money efficiently.
>>65401529>Can you repeat the question...You're not the boss of me now.
>>65402743The circumstance might change and make that tank useful again. Additionally, they're still used in indirect fire. However, suppose for a second that effective drone countermeasures are developed, while you went and abolished everything that has some armor and a gun. Worse yet, you lost the knowledge and expertise on how to operate them and the logistical chain to maintain and supply them.This doesn't just pertain to tanks but in general.
>>65401561Modern warfare comes in two flavors, cheap and nasty regional conflict or nukes fly and everybody dies. No one can afford the second kind so it's going to be cheap and nasty from now on.
>>65400428Once the Muscovite Mongol Khanate returns to it ancestral practice of riding horse, the Rus will fall before them once again.
>>65401584Reminds me of hubris of battleships era admirals>jet fuel can't melt steel beams>aircrafts can't sink moving battleships >because.... because just because Chud!>drones can't kill moving tanks because... because.... just because, Chud!
>>65400428No>>65400429fpwp, you’re retarded.
>>65401547Considering it’s a dronenigger thread, yes.
>>65402883>dronenigger humiliates himself for a week in previous dronenigger “muh tanks are obsolete thread”>continues his retarded disingenuous comparison to battleships in this threadRetarded dronenigger lolcow, tanks are not battleships, drones are not carriers, end of discussion, you already got BTFO last time.
>>65402883nta brown-kun, but battleship admirals were well aware of the threat of airpower by 1930, which is why even the most conservative of them wanted carriers to provide fighter cover the battleline, if nothing else. now crawl back to the trench made of your own ineptitude.
>>65400428Mechanized warfare is the only way to execute maneuver operations in the drone era. Why? Because actually effective counter drone systems can be only vehicle based, only vehicle have enough payload and power supply large enough for such systems. Finally infantry man with his rifle went the way of dodo completely.But adjusting mechanized warfare to drones era requires actual adjustment, aka development and deployment of said anti drone systems. But instead if that militaries prefer to remain ignorant. 3rd year id drone era is going and American and NATO tanks still have zero AA anti drone guns installed. During WWII they bolted dozens and even hundred AAA guns to ships and battleships as emergency measure to deal with pesky aircrafts, imagine they send US Navy ships without AAA to fight Japs.Lesson from this I see is everybody refuse to learn from others experience, they need to get slapped with drones across their ignorant faces personally to get the memo.
>>65402899>but battleship admirals were well aware of the threat of airpower by 1930, which is why even the most conservative of them wanted carriers to provide fighter cover the battleline, ifThis is why British admirals send without blinking POW and Repulse battleships with pathetic AAA armaments and without air cover into Japanese aircrafts.>jet fuel can't melt steel beams
>>65402902>infantry man with his rifleI disagree, there are brand new developments in that too, new anti-drone rifle rounds are proving quite effective, shotguns actually suck ass at destroying drones, but being able to spam 30 rounds of anti-drone ammo and then quickly reloading is making it far more difficult for drones to approach.
>>65401576Anti drone autocannons should be rightfully seen as the last ditch option that it is, similar to CIWS. It doesnt even rate as a bandaid solutionin this context, as the actual solution should be anti-drone drone swarms and long-range anti-drone operator drones, alongside EW.
>>65402917See results. You should judge everything by results Frontlines still remains static and warfare is attritional grind. Sides would run out of soldiers before strategic victory via capturing strategic objective would be achieved.Flesh is too weak to fight machine. Just like WWI artillery stalemate was solved by not marching harder with flesh but making machine (tank) that is stronger than flesh.
>>65402919See WWII, sure naval small caliber AAA was last line of defenses, but can you imagine WWII naval combat without iconic images of hundreds AAA barrels spewing fire at incoming aircrafts?
>>65400428>is war stuff ever something somethingNone of yous ever served.
>>65402902>Been proven to take down tanksShotguns, rifle wth canister shoot>Proven not to workAps system, missiles,...Get over it, armored vehicle are dead
>>65400428laser point defense will end drone warfare, stronger laser point defense will end missile warfare. soon bros...
>>65401584>and force back maneuver warfarethen you just run into prepared ambushes...with drones...
>>65402990>enemy destroys generator>enemy destroys fuel truck>enemy destroys refineries>no power for laser defense>fpv crashes right into the laser turret
>>65402913>the RN being near-German level inept with their carriers means everyone else was too!Yeah, I remember when I didn't know anything either.
>>65403023Maybe be you missed the memo but British Navy was unmatched leader.
>>65402336>Umm actually you can't ever run out of anything since if yoy have even 1 you haven't "run out"I hate this semantic bullshit that's been spouted since forever now. If your stocks have been so reduced that you can only utilize an asset in a spread out, useless trickle, then you have effectively "run out"
Seems to me that emplaced infantry are just far too venurable, so we are going to see hardening of squad assets like armoured cars, everyone being mechanized, and drones taking the place of close protection
>>65402928tanks were basically irrelevant to the outcome of ww1, they showed up on the battlefield very late. germany was mostly beaten by the entente throwing more bodies into the meat grinder than germany plus the sea blockade crippling the central powers industry pretty good. in the 1918 meuse-argonnes offensive the americans fielded 1.2 million men against the germans and had losses of 350k, the americans deployed some french tanks but half of them broke down in no mans land and they basically werent decisive in any way.
>>65403083>tanks were basically irrelevant to the outcome of ww1,Indeed. Tanks didn't mature yet and WWI ended via attritional grind.I am talking about WWII that had completely different course comparing to WWI style warfare and now matured tanks played key role in that. You cant spell "Blitzkrieg" without "panzer"
>>65403112>You cant spell "Blitzkrieg" without "panzer"You can't spell it without "The Albion Bravely Ran Away, here's his excuse why he bravely tucked his tail."
