You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are Traditional Armored Formations Becoming Obsolete in the Drone Era?
- Thread starter Miragedriver
- Start date
When you mentioned the turtle tank and trying to have AI do a visual recognition of the vehicle (especially with all of the customized modification), hopefully it wouldn't misrecognize a donated M-113 as a potential target. Use of artificial intelligence is in its infancy as the aircraft was in WW I. Withing the next decade we will see an increase in its use, especially among the more industrialized nation with the capabilities and declining birth rates.
A human can easily misjudge a trophy M113 too, which is why most trophy vehicles are used behind the lines working as ferry taxis.
The same applies to captured Ukrainian drones too. For example Baba Yagas are put down by EW measures and then recovered, then repurposed by the Russians for their own use. As Baba Yagas are routinely intercepted by Russian FPV drones, the captured drones are used behind lines to ferry supplies to forward troops. The Russian high command itself has been a bit slow in adopting heavy lift quadcopter and hexacopter drones for logistical purposes but on the tactical level, the troops are free to use whatever means to get the job done.
Now, if FPV drones are striking at supply lines, a drone would also have problems distinguishing whether this is a civilian car with civilians or a civilian car with troops on it. So often the Ukrainians are using cars, SUVs and pickups for military transport, and if we used previous wireless drones, the image isn't so good, a drone can easily hit civilians. One of the benefits of fiberoptic is that the data throughput is high enough without interference that images are clear enough that operators can easier tell civilians apart from military.
This points that if you want better AI target recognition using the backend, not on the drone itself, you need higher data throughput.
Reading through the thread I do not believe the trends most people are speaking of.
In my opinion, we are still in the midst of a transition in warfare and history is instructive in this regard. Whenever technology progresses much faster than tactics we see a shock period, but then a transition period, which is what we have to look at now. Ultimately, trench lines and machine guns were not defeated with the appearance of the tank. They were defeated much earlier during the Brusilov offensive in 1916. The tactics pioneered there is what eventually ended trench warfare, rather than the simple invention of the tank.
What does this mean? Adaptation to rapid technological change (and therefore the character of war) does not simply mean phasing out an entire arm of the army, or adoption of a single technology. No. Adaptation to such radical changes means multi-domain adaptation throughout several components of your armed forces. An instructive historical analogue here is the Cavalry arm of the military.
Cavalry did not simply stop existing in 1516, nor did heavy cavalry become obsolete. In fact, French cuirassiers continued to terrorize the battlefield even during the Crimean War of 1853. Cavalry adapted. It changed tactics, it eschewed the extreme heavy armor of the Gendarme in favor of mobility, coordination, and precision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
All of this is a long winded way of saying that no, traditional armor formations are unlikely to become obsolete in my opinion, but they will change. In fact, they may drastically change in tactics and CONEMP. Moreover, it's not just the armored arm that will have to make adaptations, it is also all the units working around Armor as well.
So, what changes do I personally think will happen? Or at least should happen if a military force wants to remain effective in the face of the drone threat?
Firstly, let's start with the equipment. I believe that current third generation designs are largely obsolete. The worst losers here are ongoing modernization efforts. Projects like the Challenger 3, which is really just a super expensive 3rd generation design. In my eyes, next generation vehicles will substantially change. They will still prioritize classic strengths of armor, which are, protection, mobility, and firepower. However, much greater considerations will be given to electronic warfare, active protection systems, and protection of critical components.
In particular, I think smart designers will give considerable attentions to hull design, in order to optimize placement of EW and APS systems to maximize coverage and limit blindspots, as well as mounting of last-ditch layers of protection like cage armor. The designs will emphasize unobstructing infantry and crew access while still providing protection. They will also have to give considerations to power generation for the purpose of EW systems. After all, logically, any armored vehicle will have greater power than a drone, giving it an advantage in the EM spectrum.
Second, I believe that tactics will have to heavily shift to prioritize EW coverage and battlefield awareness. Battlefield management will become more important, concentration of mass will only be possible in "safe" areas where the battlespace is sanitized and protected from drones. Which is possible given enough protection and especially distance.
Which means that large assaults are still possible but will require thorough preparation and speed to achieve penetration. Militaries did not give up on achieving breakthrough after World War 1, and I assure you, they will not give up post Ukraine.
Third, military forces will have to reorganize and develop new methods of employment centered around enabling armor to do its job. I don't know if you noticed, by being an infantryman sucks. Being blown up sucks. Losing valuable and experienced manpower really sucks. As such, it is sensible for militaries to prioritize survival and maximizing armored platforms to enable survival. Which means that more support units and therefore more coordination will have to be created in order to enable armor to do its job. This means more counter-UAV assets, more EW, more ISR, and so on. All of it will have to work together to maximize the survivability and lethality of armored forces.
I believe that there will be far more drone and counter drone (SHORAD, EW) units, much more emphasis on battlespace awareness for ground forces, particularly armor.
TL;DR
1. New, redesigned vehicles that handle the drone threat better
2. Changes in armored and infantry tactics to maximize armor resilience against drones
3. More supporting elements to maximize employment of armor
In my opinion, we are still in the midst of a transition in warfare and history is instructive in this regard. Whenever technology progresses much faster than tactics we see a shock period, but then a transition period, which is what we have to look at now. Ultimately, trench lines and machine guns were not defeated with the appearance of the tank. They were defeated much earlier during the Brusilov offensive in 1916. The tactics pioneered there is what eventually ended trench warfare, rather than the simple invention of the tank.
What does this mean? Adaptation to rapid technological change (and therefore the character of war) does not simply mean phasing out an entire arm of the army, or adoption of a single technology. No. Adaptation to such radical changes means multi-domain adaptation throughout several components of your armed forces. An instructive historical analogue here is the Cavalry arm of the military.
Cavalry did not simply stop existing in 1516, nor did heavy cavalry become obsolete. In fact, French cuirassiers continued to terrorize the battlefield even during the Crimean War of 1853. Cavalry adapted. It changed tactics, it eschewed the extreme heavy armor of the Gendarme in favor of mobility, coordination, and precision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
All of this is a long winded way of saying that no, traditional armor formations are unlikely to become obsolete in my opinion, but they will change. In fact, they may drastically change in tactics and CONEMP. Moreover, it's not just the armored arm that will have to make adaptations, it is also all the units working around Armor as well.
So, what changes do I personally think will happen? Or at least should happen if a military force wants to remain effective in the face of the drone threat?
Firstly, let's start with the equipment. I believe that current third generation designs are largely obsolete. The worst losers here are ongoing modernization efforts. Projects like the Challenger 3, which is really just a super expensive 3rd generation design. In my eyes, next generation vehicles will substantially change. They will still prioritize classic strengths of armor, which are, protection, mobility, and firepower. However, much greater considerations will be given to electronic warfare, active protection systems, and protection of critical components.
In particular, I think smart designers will give considerable attentions to hull design, in order to optimize placement of EW and APS systems to maximize coverage and limit blindspots, as well as mounting of last-ditch layers of protection like cage armor. The designs will emphasize unobstructing infantry and crew access while still providing protection. They will also have to give considerations to power generation for the purpose of EW systems. After all, logically, any armored vehicle will have greater power than a drone, giving it an advantage in the EM spectrum.
Second, I believe that tactics will have to heavily shift to prioritize EW coverage and battlefield awareness. Battlefield management will become more important, concentration of mass will only be possible in "safe" areas where the battlespace is sanitized and protected from drones. Which is possible given enough protection and especially distance.
Which means that large assaults are still possible but will require thorough preparation and speed to achieve penetration. Militaries did not give up on achieving breakthrough after World War 1, and I assure you, they will not give up post Ukraine.
Third, military forces will have to reorganize and develop new methods of employment centered around enabling armor to do its job. I don't know if you noticed, by being an infantryman sucks. Being blown up sucks. Losing valuable and experienced manpower really sucks. As such, it is sensible for militaries to prioritize survival and maximizing armored platforms to enable survival. Which means that more support units and therefore more coordination will have to be created in order to enable armor to do its job. This means more counter-UAV assets, more EW, more ISR, and so on. All of it will have to work together to maximize the survivability and lethality of armored forces.
I believe that there will be far more drone and counter drone (SHORAD, EW) units, much more emphasis on battlespace awareness for ground forces, particularly armor.
TL;DR
1. New, redesigned vehicles that handle the drone threat better
2. Changes in armored and infantry tactics to maximize armor resilience against drones
3. More supporting elements to maximize employment of armor