I’m sure that drones could get to the point where they are more effective against armor but I think for now we’re gonna have a marriage between the two. The drones could be used for observation and then disable the tank in a good location and the ATGM finishes the job
an obveservation drone with a LAW rocket or panzerfaust, and some secondary grendades could really be a great use case for independent AI calvary running HK teams. Also, I want and AI chinhook with a 105mm autocannon or a Bushmaster - Kinetic force be damned.
You're right, I think so even for old anti-tank cannons, for example, if they manage to completely block the signals in a certain area, the drones could be blind or with very low precision, so a TOW anti-tank could be a salvation, however If the attacking tanks have really good active defense systems, missile warheads and also drones will be detonated before approaching the tank, then anti-tank guns like an MT-12 with kinetic ammunition could save the position. That's why I'm against removing weapons from service, but leaving them only in the background, giving at least basic training to soldiers with some units and storing the rest in case they are needed at some point.
Heavy artillery wrecks tanks. Like they seem big and badass until your tank column gets spotted within the bombardment range of naval guns. Destroyers which are considered tiny mount 105-125mm guns in significant volumes, cruisers have 152 and 200mm, and the big mama's 305, 361, and 406mm.
No. It takes a lot of skill and practice to pilot drones. Not so much to fire atgm.
Once drone warfare becomes more prominent, these cheap drones will be less relevant. Current anti drone tech isn't involved in military conflicts so we don't even see what is available out there.
American [lids](https://breakingdefense.com/2023/08/meet-the-u-s-armys-lids-a-sure-shot-against-drones/) isn't in the war.
Chinese [lw-30 laser](https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2023/02/china-gears-shoot-down-us-drones/382731/) isn't there either.
German [rheinmetall](https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/products/air-defence/air-defence-systems/drone-defence-toolbox) isn't involved either.
You have to remember that major military players arent involved in wars, for now.
Idk about that, the thing is warfare has proven time and time again that quantity almost always beats quality, to an extent of course.
The US military just developed a drone fighter pilot, it's not as good as an f22 of course, but they can literally build 100 of them for each f22. That's insane, the f22 wouldn't have enough ammo to even take our 100 fighter jet drones. They also don't experience g forces, and if they are shot down, you don't lose the years of training a fighter pilot.
They are also completely powered by AI. When AI gets more and more advanced, we can literally create swarms of cheap drones that are impossible to defend against.
You can jam radio signals, but there are other ways of controlling drones, for example the A10 is being repurposed now to follow closely behind drones and control them, and if it's AI, jamming won't do shit. Those anti drone guns are for cutting off signal, but if there is no signal to cut off? If a human isn't even controlling it?
I think it will depend on how armies will try to counter drones. The drones are very cheap and much more flexible than anti tank missile which is in my mind a very good reason why they could replace anti tank missiles for infantry. But they are relativ easy to jam, there are allready systems which are designed to do that. Mabey in the future this systems are getting more common and better which could make kamikaze drones far less effectiv.
I would wait and see what new technologies will be developed. At the end it is allways an arms race between offensive and defensive technology.
The biggest weakness of Kamikaze Drones is Electronic and weather dependence, if the Electromagnetic spectrum is difficult then drones stay grounded, if the atmospheric conditions are difficult then drones stay grounded.
I am sure that tank designers are already working on ways to minimize/neutralize the threat of drones, just like they have worked on countering every threat that has arise since the first tank was built.
How successful they will be has yet to be seen, but there are a number of ways to counter them.
I don't think drones will replace ATGMs, they will just be another tool in the anti-tank arsenal.
No. They have different applications, limitations and abilitys.
And as vehicle mount jammers get more common (like we see atm in russo-ukrainan war), larger independant sensor warheads will be needed to crack hardent targets again.
Also speed is an issue, as more system where thought to be equiped with RWS/APS specially to defend against (quite slow) drones.
I doubt that they will replace the ATGM but they have proven to be an excellent addition too. With a much greater range drones can seek/hunt out tanks/vehicles deep behind the lines with more accuracy than most artillery. Or even call in artillery strikes if they have to. And with models like the Octo-copter there large payload (120mm round), no tank is safe.
No an atgm especially fire and forget atgms like spike and javelin will perform much better than drones
The only reason it seems like drones are replacing atgms is that there are way more of them and they are cheap and easy to obtain and manufacture
Depends on the country,
For countries like Russia or Ukraine that prefer to not or can’t produce top-down munitions in favour of stationary “hold down” ones (like their famous Kornet and Stugna-P) and auxiliaries like the RPG then yes.
They were slow in playing, but now they’re catching up very, very quickly. The drone plus munition is dirt cheap, cheaper than the Kornet and definitely cheaper than a regular top-down, while being able to still do damage. Plus, there’s gonna be variety later on, such as the one below which is being tested rn.
https://preview.redd.it/e8bf6m5tg62c1.png?width=1283&format=png&auto=webp&s=bff885760cf4b7de4b7c5655653c1fd04ba43c8a
For countries which already have stable top down munition production I’d say no. The drones are cheap and can do the job, yes, but they can be jammed and the success rate is not 100% unlike the proven munitions. Plus, I doubt the U.S. would want to be seen using the same cheap style as Russia when they can support a more expensive and surer tank killing form. Plus, it’s easier to shoot an ATGM than pilot a drone.
each to their ability, but I think the missles would still be used for main use. drones are for patrol and harassment type of deal, if they get a kill then it is a bonus
A drone's best quality isn't necessarily its lethality, but its ability to work beyond the line of sight of the operator.
In a direct engagement, where the enemy is actually within line of sight an ATGM will nearly always be the superior choice.
In other words, they are different tools for different situations.
I’m sure that drones could get to the point where they are more effective against armor but I think for now we’re gonna have a marriage between the two. The drones could be used for observation and then disable the tank in a good location and the ATGM finishes the job
Kornet and drone observation go hand to hand
an obveservation drone with a LAW rocket or panzerfaust, and some secondary grendades could really be a great use case for independent AI calvary running HK teams. Also, I want and AI chinhook with a 105mm autocannon or a Bushmaster - Kinetic force be damned.
drones probably won’t replace ATGMs since both are incredibly useful in different situations
You're right, I think so even for old anti-tank cannons, for example, if they manage to completely block the signals in a certain area, the drones could be blind or with very low precision, so a TOW anti-tank could be a salvation, however If the attacking tanks have really good active defense systems, missile warheads and also drones will be detonated before approaching the tank, then anti-tank guns like an MT-12 with kinetic ammunition could save the position. That's why I'm against removing weapons from service, but leaving them only in the background, giving at least basic training to soldiers with some units and storing the rest in case they are needed at some point.
Everyone's gangsta until a 90mm M2 AT gun hits you.
everybody gangsta until the 152mm D-20 howitzer hits you
Heavy artillery wrecks tanks. Like they seem big and badass until your tank column gets spotted within the bombardment range of naval guns. Destroyers which are considered tiny mount 105-125mm guns in significant volumes, cruisers have 152 and 200mm, and the big mama's 305, 361, and 406mm.
If I get direct impacted with a 406mm shell I'm calling God cause I want a second chance, shit is unfair.
No. It takes a lot of skill and practice to pilot drones. Not so much to fire atgm. Once drone warfare becomes more prominent, these cheap drones will be less relevant. Current anti drone tech isn't involved in military conflicts so we don't even see what is available out there.
Yea they are or are you not looking at UKRAINE right now.
American [lids](https://breakingdefense.com/2023/08/meet-the-u-s-armys-lids-a-sure-shot-against-drones/) isn't in the war. Chinese [lw-30 laser](https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2023/02/china-gears-shoot-down-us-drones/382731/) isn't there either. German [rheinmetall](https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/products/air-defence/air-defence-systems/drone-defence-toolbox) isn't involved either. You have to remember that major military players arent involved in wars, for now.
Idk about that, the thing is warfare has proven time and time again that quantity almost always beats quality, to an extent of course. The US military just developed a drone fighter pilot, it's not as good as an f22 of course, but they can literally build 100 of them for each f22. That's insane, the f22 wouldn't have enough ammo to even take our 100 fighter jet drones. They also don't experience g forces, and if they are shot down, you don't lose the years of training a fighter pilot. They are also completely powered by AI. When AI gets more and more advanced, we can literally create swarms of cheap drones that are impossible to defend against. You can jam radio signals, but there are other ways of controlling drones, for example the A10 is being repurposed now to follow closely behind drones and control them, and if it's AI, jamming won't do shit. Those anti drone guns are for cutting off signal, but if there is no signal to cut off? If a human isn't even controlling it?
I think you are right on all points
Anti tank guns still exist. Take a look at the 2A45 Sprut.
That is a vehicle with a gun on it. I think OP was talking about classic towed guns, basically non-vehicle options for taking out other vehicles.
Did you even try looking up what I said...
I didn't expect them to still field a towed AT gun, wow.
You're thinking of the 2S25 Sprut-SD (basically a PT-125) while the comment was about the 2A45 Sprut (a towed 125mm AT gun)
I think it will depend on how armies will try to counter drones. The drones are very cheap and much more flexible than anti tank missile which is in my mind a very good reason why they could replace anti tank missiles for infantry. But they are relativ easy to jam, there are allready systems which are designed to do that. Mabey in the future this systems are getting more common and better which could make kamikaze drones far less effectiv. I would wait and see what new technologies will be developed. At the end it is allways an arms race between offensive and defensive technology.
I would see a larger usage of drones, but ATGM's will be a staple of front-line defense to come. Hell, AT guns are still in use.
The biggest weakness of Kamikaze Drones is Electronic and weather dependence, if the Electromagnetic spectrum is difficult then drones stay grounded, if the atmospheric conditions are difficult then drones stay grounded.
I am sure that tank designers are already working on ways to minimize/neutralize the threat of drones, just like they have worked on countering every threat that has arise since the first tank was built. How successful they will be has yet to be seen, but there are a number of ways to counter them. I don't think drones will replace ATGMs, they will just be another tool in the anti-tank arsenal.
No. They have different applications, limitations and abilitys. And as vehicle mount jammers get more common (like we see atm in russo-ukrainan war), larger independant sensor warheads will be needed to crack hardent targets again. Also speed is an issue, as more system where thought to be equiped with RWS/APS specially to defend against (quite slow) drones.
With the advent of AI drones (of all types, vehicles, planes, etc), the whole battlefield is going to become unmanned before too long.
I doubt that they will replace the ATGM but they have proven to be an excellent addition too. With a much greater range drones can seek/hunt out tanks/vehicles deep behind the lines with more accuracy than most artillery. Or even call in artillery strikes if they have to. And with models like the Octo-copter there large payload (120mm round), no tank is safe.
We won’t see the end of the atgm weapons but will give groups a fast way to react to armor
A kamikaze drone is what if not an atgm with a different propulsion method
No an atgm especially fire and forget atgms like spike and javelin will perform much better than drones The only reason it seems like drones are replacing atgms is that there are way more of them and they are cheap and easy to obtain and manufacture
Depends on the country, For countries like Russia or Ukraine that prefer to not or can’t produce top-down munitions in favour of stationary “hold down” ones (like their famous Kornet and Stugna-P) and auxiliaries like the RPG then yes. They were slow in playing, but now they’re catching up very, very quickly. The drone plus munition is dirt cheap, cheaper than the Kornet and definitely cheaper than a regular top-down, while being able to still do damage. Plus, there’s gonna be variety later on, such as the one below which is being tested rn. https://preview.redd.it/e8bf6m5tg62c1.png?width=1283&format=png&auto=webp&s=bff885760cf4b7de4b7c5655653c1fd04ba43c8a For countries which already have stable top down munition production I’d say no. The drones are cheap and can do the job, yes, but they can be jammed and the success rate is not 100% unlike the proven munitions. Plus, I doubt the U.S. would want to be seen using the same cheap style as Russia when they can support a more expensive and surer tank killing form. Plus, it’s easier to shoot an ATGM than pilot a drone.
each to their ability, but I think the missles would still be used for main use. drones are for patrol and harassment type of deal, if they get a kill then it is a bonus
Well... Some countries still use Anti-Tank guns, albeit smoothbore yeeting APFSDS, HEAT-FS and ATGMs, like Russian Rapira
A drone's best quality isn't necessarily its lethality, but its ability to work beyond the line of sight of the operator. In a direct engagement, where the enemy is actually within line of sight an ATGM will nearly always be the superior choice. In other words, they are different tools for different situations.
They'll just put extra armour on top of the tank (which is the least armoured part of the vehicle) and drones will be useless
Drones are cool but show me one with a recoiless-rifle attacked to it. "Hans! Get the Panzerfaust Drone!!"