I guess 5 Abrams and 30 million worth of drones vs 60 million worth of drones might be a better comparison. I think I’d still favour the drones but it’s much less obvious.
My view on where the tanks might win is: there’s a point at which you basically saturate your capability at “whatever drones are good at” while there might be some other job tanks are good at (my vague guess is that this is something like “attacking well defended positions”—they’re fast, take specialized weapons to defeat, and have big guns), and you’re better off having that capability than further saturating your drone capability. But I’ve little in the way of quantitative insight about where saturation might occur, nor how good tanks are at attacking.
A particular point I’m a bit confused about: I’ve often seen people saying: tanks need infantry support to be safe. However, aren’t infantry and tanks both vulnerable to drones?
I guess 5 Abrams and 30 million worth of drones vs 60 million worth of drones might be a better comparison. I think I’d still favour the drones but it’s much less obvious.
Good point. Yeah I would still favor the drones, and by a lot. The abrams would be about as useless as the Yamato, probably moreso even.
My view on where the tanks might win is: there’s a point at which you basically saturate your capability at “whatever drones are good at” while there might be some other job tanks are good at (my vague guess is that this is something like “attacking well defended positions”—they’re fast, take specialized weapons to defeat, and have big guns), and you’re better off having that capability than further saturating your drone capability. But I’ve little in the way of quantitative insight about where saturation might occur, nor how good tanks are at attacking.
A particular point I’m a bit confused about: I’ve often seen people saying: tanks need infantry support to be safe. However, aren’t infantry and tanks both vulnerable to drones?