Ukraine and Russia to a lesser extent rely on battlefield drones as their primary tactical hammers. And so see every problem as a nail that must be pounded into the ground no matter how many blows it takes. What if either used another tool?
An up-armored Leopard 1A5 tank belonging to the Ukrainian army’s 5th Heavy Mechanized Brigade shrugged off 52 first-person-view drones in a daylong bombardment, according to a new report from Ukrainian publication Defense Industry.
Every time I read about one of these mass FPV suicide drone attacks I wonder why an anti-tank gun or anti-tank missile wasn't used. With a tank optimized to stop small drones, wouldn't a direct-fire anti-tank weapon drill through the drone protection? The basic Leopard I is a very thinly armored tank. Even well-armored tanks are weaker away from the frontal arc.
I understand that if the tank is being attacked well behind the front "line" that direct-fire weapons can't be used. But I just get the impression that Ukraine and Russia use the FPV drones because that's what they have and not because it is the best weapon in the combined arms kit for the particular mission.
Without a static front line with a very wide No-Man's Land, how could armies rely on firing so many drones at a single armored vehicle? Shouldn't direct fire be more in the mix?
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!
NOTE: Photo from the essay.
