Now that the battlefield tactics in modern warfare has changed dramatically, and a K-mart drone can be used as air superiority over many area's of the battlefield, hell it doesn't matter about new or old in a slug out, what matters is how does one escape the drones that are being used heavier and heavier in the war ???
Well the war in Ukraine is just about the exact opposite of modern warfare, other than the use of drones to replace the forward observer.
We see a lot of drone-dropped grenades, but most of the tanks you see being destroyed are abandoned. Sometimes disabled by a mine first, or run out of fuel, whatever. Usually sitting with hatches left open so they will be easier to take out if they can't be immediately recovered.
Ukraine has been innovative in the use of consumer-grade drones and improvised munitions to target troops in trenches, and that seems to have a significant effect on Russian morale. But it's not killing large numbers of Russians, it's more like we just see a lot of those videos.
As you would expect, the counter-drone R&D is underway with a fury, and a whole slew of new systems being tested in Ukraine. It's a cat-and-mouse game, rapidly evolving. What works today doesn't work tomorrow.
I don't agree that the MBT is obsolete though. They aren't being employed in Ukraine the way we use them. They (both sides) are using them as mobile artillery, or as part of an advance without infantry support, and that leads to high losses to both opposing artillery and infantry AT weapons.
The way the argument gets framed around here most of the time is that it doesn't matter if the Russians are in T-72's and the Ukes are in Leo's, but it does matter. The Leo can see the T-72 and hit the T-72 at twice the range of the T-72's gun, and the Leo is more survivable if it does get hit. Those things matter.
It also matter that Ukraine doesn't have them in large numbers, so as "game changers"? No- they are not game changers. They are force multipliers, that's all.
