NATO beware: Drones can’t replace tanks, experts warn

[rangerrebew]

NATO beware: Drones can’t replace tanks, experts warn
By Michael Peck
 Aug 19, 2025, 08:00 PM
 
Rather than exploiting Russia’s weaknesses, a drone-centric NATO could be playing to Russia’s strengths, some experts warn. Here, a Ukrainian serviceman of the 57th Motorized Brigade controls an FPV drone at the frontline in Kharkiv region, Ukraine, on Aug. 2012. (Andrii Marienko/AP)
As armies scramble to learn the lessons of the Russia-Ukraine war, one question looms above all: Have drones replaced traditional weapons such as tanks and artillery?

For NATO, the implications are more than tactical. As the alliance struggles to rebuild its long-neglected armies, it faces tough decisions about allocating scarce money and industrial capacity. If robots are the future, then doesn’t it make sense to build $500 drones instead of $5 million tanks?


Not so fast, warn some experts. Replacing old-fashioned firepower with a purely drone force would be a blunder.

“There are several reasons why it would be a mistake for NATO forces to rely heavily on massed small UAS [unmanned aerial systems] and long range OWA [one-way attack] drones to replace traditional weapons systems in pursuit of improved lethality and thus deterrence against future Russian aggression,” argues Justin Bronk, a researcher at the British think tank Royal United Services Institute, in a recent essay.

https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2025/08/20/nato-beware-drones-cant-replace-tanks-experts-warn/

[rangerrebew]

The Marines seem to feel they can get along just fine without tanks.

[DefiantMassRINO]

For all their drones, the Ukrainians have not been able to regain lost territory.

Drones can compliment ground warfare, but they cannot replace it.

You still have to kill the people that make and fly drones, as well as destory the facilities where they are made, programmed, and flown from.

[Smokin Joe]

The only time an enemy was bombed into submission involved nukes.

Drones have been shown to be effective for hunting down and even destroying the enemy on a tactical level, and have proven to be effective anti-armor and antipersonnel weapons with the right payload.

Strategic strikes on logistical targets have the potential to hamper enemy activity, but are reminiscent of the 8th Air Force campaign against the Nazis. While it certainly reduced Germany's ability to supply their troops, aircraft production actually increased. The key was in destroying fuel supplies. Despite having the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world, Germany barely had the fuel to fly them, and not enough to train pilots to do so.

It would be folly to not incorporate the capability of drones into front line combat, or to utilize them to cripple an enemy's logistical trail, but in order to prevail, the enemy's space must be either occupied or rendered unlivable.
While, theoretically, it would be possible to target an enemy's organic ability to produce war materiel, or even their personnel in bivouac or in transport, this does not force them from territory.

Keeping in mind that armor (or any vehicle) is subject to being destroyed by an enemy drone, the ability to bring the biggest gun to the fight still has merit. Infantry and the ability to occupy the space the enemy formerly occupied and to prevent the enemy from occupying your space remain the basic concept of conquest.