(KYIV) – Tanks remain a vital asset on the modern battlefield despite the proliferation of drones, according to frontline commanders from both Ukraine and Russia who continue to adapt tactics and technology to keep armoured vehicles in combat.
The assessment challenges growing claims that the era of the tank has ended. Ukrainian tank crews interviewed by military publication The War Zone insist the platforms are still indispensable for direct fire support and troop insertion, even as drone threats have forced significant modifications.
“It’s not over, talking about the era of tanks. They’re just waiting it out for now, biding their time. Writing off tanks, in my opinion, is still too early,” one Ukrainian commander said.
Combat operations conducted by Ukraine’s 425th Separate Assault Regiment in the Pokrovsk direction demonstrate the evolving role of tanks. In December, a tank was deployed specifically to draw enemy attention while infantry dismounted and advanced. “Since a tank is a priority target, my task was to draw their attention while our infantry dismounted and moved in successfully. We went right in there, poured it on, and drove it back out,” the commander explained.
In March, tanks were again used to move infantry into assault positions near Kherson, though one vehicle was destroyed during extraction. The mission was nonetheless considered successful.
The financial argument for tank deployment remains contested. A single M1 Abrams costs approximately $5 million (£3.9 million / €4.6 million), yet commanders argue the cost is justified when measured against crew survival. “Yes, of course it makes sense to deploy it. First and foremost, it saves the lives of the crew inside of it,” one commander stated.
Ukrainian tank commander callsign Kent reported his Abrams sustained more than 20 drone strikes during a single assault in Barros, surviving due to combined armour and additional anti-drone protection. Basic modifications including rubber strips and a foldable wire cage mounted on the turret have proven effective. “A drone doesn’t hit the actual penetrating element directly. It just can’t reach it. It hits the rubber, then the blast wave travels from there,” Kent said.
The latest adaptation, known as the hedgehog variant, involves wire extending in every direction, allowing tanks to absorb repeated blasts. Ukrainian sources report one Abrams survived 40 explosions.
Despite these advances, some commanders acknowledge current limitations. “For now, we’re not using them further. There’s just no way to. The enemy has developed their drone component very heavily, and for now, we don’t have the means to counter that. The day will come where one of our bright minds figures out some excellent solution against drones and we’ll start using them again,” commander Kub said.
Russia is pursuing active protection systems, specifically the Arena M, designed to track and shoot down incoming threats rather than absorb them. The system is not new technology, but its adaptation for drone defence represents a significant development. Russian sources claim the Arena M performed effectively in combat, downing multiple drones before its 12 counter-munitions were exhausted.
Military informant, a Russian war correspondent, noted plans to increase counter-munitions from 12 to 36 by early 2027, though this remains unconfirmed. “Such an upgrade would be extremely logical as the current number of counter munitions is completely inadequate to deal with the number of incoming threats. During a single prolonged attack, a single tank can be targeted by dozens of FPV drones rather than just a few,” the correspondent said.
The tactical shift is notable. Russian armoured groups are now acting as decoys for Ukrainian drone swarms, allowing assault elements to advance with minimal losses while tanks with APS systems draw fire. This mirrors Ukrainian tactics from the 425th Regiment.
The economics still favour drones. At approximately $1,000 (£780 / €920) per FPV drone, a vehicle surviving 40 explosions represents $40,000 (£31,000 / €37,000) in expenditure against a tank worth between $500,000 and several million dollars. This is a minimum 10 to 1 cost ratio favouring drones.
The casualty situation explains the urgency to keep tanks operational. According to Ukrainian sources, Russian forces suffered 11,000 soldiers killed or seriously wounded in August 2025, engaging 58,000 enemy targets at a rate of 1,800 per day. Russian territorial gains of approximately 133 to 219 square kilometres translate to roughly 82 Russian soldiers killed or seriously wounded per square kilometre.
“No wonder they’re trying to get more tanks into the fight. Even Russia, that has a lot of manpower and is probably going to kick off mobilisation in the next few months, would prefer to lose fewer soldiers to take territory,” the assessment noted.
Footage of tank operations and active protection systems was released by military sources from both Ukrainian and Russian units. The operations discussed occurred primarily in the Pokrovsk direction and near Kherson in Donetsk and Kherson oblasts respectively.
Be First to Comment