You are completely overlooking the fact that drones are massively cheaper and per-unit also more effective than these other anti-tank weapons you mention. Furthermore, the problem is not that tanks can not be still upgraded further, but that they are waaaay to expensive for the limited benefit they still offer in a battlefield with anti-tank drones deployed. Adding expensive anti-drone defense that is unlikely to be very effective just makes this an even worse argument.
And sorry, that is not a naive view, but rather one that looks beyond narrow tactical considerations, just like the cost argument above. You might be still able to win a battle with tanks, but you can’t win a war with them anymore.
Helicopters are an exceptionally bad counter example as they are uniquely vulnerable and expensive to operate and thus can only be deployed in a very limited fashion.
drones are massively cheaper and per-unit also more effective than these other anti-tank weapons you mention.
Not really, tanks aren’t being taken out by your cheap and cheerful $400 fpv drones. They need something like a Lancet at minimum which Wikipedia tells me has a $35,000 (or $37,000 - i guess using different exchange rates?) export price which is actually a bit more than a Kornet ATGM at $26,000 (thanks again Jimmy Wales).
There is a huge range of drone between fpv drones and those complex loitering ammunition you mention. The ones most commonly mentioned and deployed by Ukraine against tanks, cost a few thousand at most.
drones are massively cheaper and per-unit also more effective than these other anti-tank weapons you mention.
And because they are so massively more effective we know of tanks getting hit by a dozen of themn and just moving on… Oh, wait. Your reference for everything are old Russian tanks (not build for quality but quantity even back then) used badly because Russia sucks at combined arms. All while using support systems that are even older or have their supposed capability only on paper.
Pretending that the war in Ukraine is a modern war because there are mass amounts of drones used is constantly missing the point. That war is as much defined by using obsolete tech and tactics while severely lacking capable air defenses as it is by the addition of drones that incidently exactly exploit that gap.
The thinking you have in your post is the reason why the most advanced military on the earth wastes 7 pac3 missiles on a single Shahed in Iran.
Truth is, nobody have good solutions vs drones yet. Bigger ones like Shahed, yes, maybe, if you have a lot of practice and are capable to build layered AA grid. FPVs are uncounterable yet.
The US military is used to fighting adversaries way below their own capabilities and doesn’t worry about conserving resources, because they like imagining that their supply chain will just deliver more. Iran has spent decades preparing for just this fight, and developed weapons, capabilities, and strategies to specifically exploit this weakness. Sending countless waves of cheap drones to expend expensive and hard to replace interceptor missiles is an attack aimed at both magazine depth and production capabilities. Every drone that gets intercepted by an expensive missile is a victory for whoever launched the drone, because it does damage by the millions of dollars just by destroying an, (or worse, multiple) interceptor missile(s), and depletes the interceptor stockpile.
Ukraine has figured out counter drone tactics quite well already, and will get better out of sheer necessity.
Ukraine has figured out how to counter shaheds - and it’s not some silver bullet, it’s a huge system of quick responders AND some of them are antiair drones teams.
Ukraine haven’t figured out what to do with enemy FPVs. Neither did russia. Which created a deep killzone out of the frontlines. Any serious discussions about defense strategy should be taking this experience as a baseline, not as some incident only applicable for the poor countries.
You can make thousands of drones for the cost of a single modern tank. No amount of hand wringing is going to change the fact that it has gotten a lot cheaper and effective to destroy tanks because of them.
You are completely overlooking the fact that drones are massively cheaper and per-unit also more effective than these other anti-tank weapons you mention. Furthermore, the problem is not that tanks can not be still upgraded further, but that they are waaaay to expensive for the limited benefit they still offer in a battlefield with anti-tank drones deployed. Adding expensive anti-drone defense that is unlikely to be very effective just makes this an even worse argument.
And sorry, that is not a naive view, but rather one that looks beyond narrow tactical considerations, just like the cost argument above. You might be still able to win a battle with tanks, but you can’t win a war with them anymore.
Helicopters with anti-tank munitions did not cause the end of the tank, it just led to the development of better supportive anti-air elements.
Drones with anti-tank munitions is not causing the end of the tank, it will just lead to the development of better supportive anti-drone elements.
Also, I don’t think you could ever “win a war” with just tanks. They always had been and always will be one piece of a broader combined arms system.
Helicopters are an exceptionally bad counter example as they are uniquely vulnerable and expensive to operate and thus can only be deployed in a very limited fashion.
Helicopters are an excellent example, because they are uniquely vulnerable BECAUSE OF countermeasure systems that were created to deal with them.
Well, if there is ever an equally effective (in costs and actual efficiency) counter-measure against anti-tank drones I am happy to change my opinion.
A well supported combined arms approach. Which is what I said several replies ago.
That is wishful thinking.
No, it’s reality.
Not really, tanks aren’t being taken out by your cheap and cheerful $400 fpv drones. They need something like a Lancet at minimum which Wikipedia tells me has a $35,000 (or $37,000 - i guess using different exchange rates?) export price which is actually a bit more than a Kornet ATGM at $26,000 (thanks again Jimmy Wales).
An AT4 missile is about 3000 bucks, but tanks still exist.
A bullet is a few cents, yet soldiers are pretty popular in every conflict too.
It’s almost as if this is a shitty argument.
There is a huge range of drone between fpv drones and those complex loitering ammunition you mention. The ones most commonly mentioned and deployed by Ukraine against tanks, cost a few thousand at most.
And because they are so massively more effective we know of tanks getting hit by a dozen of themn and just moving on… Oh, wait. Your reference for everything are old Russian tanks (not build for quality but quantity even back then) used badly because Russia sucks at combined arms. All while using support systems that are even older or have their supposed capability only on paper.
Pretending that the war in Ukraine is a modern war because there are mass amounts of drones used is constantly missing the point. That war is as much defined by using obsolete tech and tactics while severely lacking capable air defenses as it is by the addition of drones that incidently exactly exploit that gap.
The thinking you have in your post is the reason why the most advanced military on the earth wastes 7 pac3 missiles on a single Shahed in Iran.
Truth is, nobody have good solutions vs drones yet. Bigger ones like Shahed, yes, maybe, if you have a lot of practice and are capable to build layered AA grid. FPVs are uncounterable yet.
That’s because they are as wasteful and learning averse as they are capable on paper.
https://united24media.com/latest-news/eight-missile-for-one-drone-ukrainian-instructors-shocked-by-us-drone-defense-tactics-17085
The US military is used to fighting adversaries way below their own capabilities and doesn’t worry about conserving resources, because they like imagining that their supply chain will just deliver more. Iran has spent decades preparing for just this fight, and developed weapons, capabilities, and strategies to specifically exploit this weakness. Sending countless waves of cheap drones to expend expensive and hard to replace interceptor missiles is an attack aimed at both magazine depth and production capabilities. Every drone that gets intercepted by an expensive missile is a victory for whoever launched the drone, because it does damage by the millions of dollars just by destroying an, (or worse, multiple) interceptor missile(s), and depletes the interceptor stockpile.
Ukraine has figured out counter drone tactics quite well already, and will get better out of sheer necessity.
Ukraine has figured out how to counter shaheds - and it’s not some silver bullet, it’s a huge system of quick responders AND some of them are antiair drones teams.
Ukraine haven’t figured out what to do with enemy FPVs. Neither did russia. Which created a deep killzone out of the frontlines. Any serious discussions about defense strategy should be taking this experience as a baseline, not as some incident only applicable for the poor countries.
You can make thousands of drones for the cost of a single modern tank. No amount of hand wringing is going to change the fact that it has gotten a lot cheaper and effective to destroy tanks because of them.
And so defenses against that specific threat will improve (see: anti-air capable remote weapons stations, active defense, EW).
The same was said when RPGs were invented, then again for ATGMs, the again for their top-attack variants… yet here we are.
An AT4 missile costs less than a tenth of what a lancet anti tank drone costs, have been around for 30 years and yet tanks still exist.
A bullet costs less than a soldier, why aren’t soldiers obsolete yet?
Because neither are as effective per unit.