Kyiv’s forces seized an enemy position using only drones and unmanned ground platforms – a first in modern land combat
Published 16 April 2026 4:00pm BST
Ukrainian forces have, by credible accounts, achieved something genuinely novel on the modern battlefield: the seizure of a Russian position using only drones and ground-based robotic systems. If confirmed in full, this marks a significant inflection point in the evolution of land warfare.
Even so, it would be a mistake to view the Ukraine war as a one-dimensional story of machines replacing men. Ukraine has employed tanks recently in their classic role with notable success. Ukrainian armour has delivered shock action and dislocation against Russian forces even in an environment saturated with drones.
President Zelensky has stated that Russian troops surrendered during this unmanned assault without a single Ukrainian soldier being placed in harm’s way. That is extraordinary. The war has been defined thus far by brutal attrition: according to UK intelligence updates, Russian forces are reportedly losing more than 1,000 troops a day. The ability to compel surrender without friendly casualties represents a profound tactical advantage.
Across Europe, this is being watched with intense interest. Nato nations, led in many respects by Poland, are reinvesting heavily in armoured capability. This is not nostalgia; it is necessity. Russia may have lost upwards of 5,000 tanks, but it retains the capacity to field thousands more, albeit largely legacy platforms highly vulnerable to first-person-view drone attacks.
The European response has focused on quality. Poland is procuring Leopard 2s and South Korean K2s, while the United Kingdom is advancing the Challenger 3 programme. These are not merely upgraded tanks; they are components of a digitally integrated battlespace. To survive, let alone dominate, they must be equipped with sophisticated defensive aid suites, particularly active protection systems capable of defeating drone and missile threats. Ukraine has demonstrated that such survivability is achievable.
What we are witnessing is not simply an incremental change, but the early stages of a doctrinal shift. Autonomous and remotely operated systems, armed ground platforms supported by reconnaissance, strike, and communications drones, are already shaping the battlefield. It is not difficult to foresee a near future where these systems operate in concert with crewed platforms in a tightly networked architecture.
However, one should be cautious about declaring a revolution complete. War is a contest of adaptation. The Russians, like any capable adversary, will seek counters, most likely in the electromagnetic domain, targeting the communications links that enable remote and autonomous operations. Disruption, degradation, and denial of those links could rapidly erode the effectiveness of such systems.
The broader implication is clear: future land warfare will be defined by integration. Platforms such as Challenger 3 and Ajax, working with tethered drones and autonomous systems, point towards a more distributed yet interconnected order of battle. The emphasis is shifting towards fewer platforms, but of far greater capability and resilience.
Yet we should guard against the perennial temptation to over-correct. History offers a sobering lesson. In the Second World War, it was not the technical superiority of German armour that proved effective, but the mass and sustainment of Allied forces: mainly Sherman tanks, which were outclassed by German Tigers but far more numerous. Quantity, when effectively employed, retains a quality all its own.
And so, while drones and AI-enabled systems are transforming how we fight, they do not negate the enduring fundamentals of warfare. Territory must still be seized and held. Machines do not possess the inherent adaptability that soldiers bring when systems fail or conditions deteriorate.
Trump has made it even clearer. Britain must have its own tactical nukes
What is undeniable is the pace of change. This war has seen casualty rates reminiscent of the First World War. Now, we are seeing engagements, at least in isolated instances, won without loss to the attacker. Equally, we have moved from a battlefield where relatively cheap drones devastated multi-million-dollar tanks, to one where properly protected armour can operate again.
The conclusion is not that the tank is obsolete, but that it is evolving. Autonomous systems are here to stay, but so too is heavy armour. The side that best integrates, adapts, and innovates will hold the advantage.
The tank is dead. Long live the tank.
Colonel Hamish de Bretton Gordon is an experienced armour commander. His next book, Tank Command, is published on June 4, 2026
Comment from :
Michael Johnson
Famous Israeli saying. “A tank without air cover is scrap metal ”
They should know, because they have turned lots of Arab tanks to scrap metal 😂
Russell Bray
The age of the Terminator is not looking so much like science fiction.
GRAHAM TRUEMAN
How many pickup mounted wombats could you field for the price of one tank, and would that mass be effective?
Marmaduke P Sheldrake
Reply to GRAHAM TRUEMAN – view message
No. Just fire sir burst artillery at them.
Fergus Mason
“Poland is procuring Leopard 2s and South Korean K2s, while the United Kingdom is advancing the Challenger 3 programme.”
These two programmes are not equivalent, though. We’re only upgrading 148 Challenger 2s to Challenger 3 standard. Poland has ordered A THOUSAND K2s.
Oliver Wiggins
I don’t want to take away from hamish’s points about quantity being a quality of its own because that is certainly true. However, I think the Sherman is a terrible analogy because much of what is said about that tank is incorrect. Sherman’s didn’t triumph merely because they were more numerous. The truth is they were the better tank in many of the engagements which played out during the war. It was robust, reliable and easy to train troops on. It had decent power pack options, a good turret traverse gearbox, great HE capability (Which was important as most of its engagements were against infantry that were dug in, in building or conversely crews for AT guns), an acceptable anti armour capability which grew to be incredibly potent with those armed with M1 76mm gun or QF17lbr (for the British) it was easy to improve and at around 30 tons, much more infrastructure could support it. Of course numbers were important but equally if the Germans had had the Sherman and US factories had churned Tigers and Panthers out in great numbers, the overall result of the war would have remained the same.
Anthony Goddard
How are the British and European tanks reluctantly donated to the Ukrainians at the beginning of the war doing ? Has any of them survived more than a couple of weeks?
Oliver Wiggins
Reply to Anthony Goddard
Yep, only one of the 14 Challenger 2s was completely put out of action for good. The others were repaired in Poland. Likewise Leopard 2s and Abrams have performed far better overall than T-series tanks (both those which were already in the Ukrainian arsenal, mainly T-64s but some T-80s too) and those donated (Polish PT-91 Twardy, Romanian T-55AM).
Gerald Benneworth
Reply to Anthony Goddard
I’ve read several times that Ukrainian forces love and value the Challenger highly, preferring to use its gun in a sniping role.
Glyn Jones
How far along the road to Moscow have those ‘game changer’ Challengers got, Hamish?
Carpe Jugulum
Reply to Glyn Jones
Of the 14 Challengers supplied one has been destroyed and seven are still in combat the others are under repair. Not one crew member has been killed. They have ended the ‘game’ of hundreds of Russian armoured vehicles and their crews.
Colin Elliott
Reply to Glyn Jones
If you follow the war closely as Hamish does, you will know that the Ukrainians value them highly, but we only gave them a dozen!
Even so, we depleted our tiny stock (we remember you, Cameron & Osborne), and will be reducing them still more.
Jonathan Muller
As long as I can remember every ten years the tank has been declared dead by the mavens of electronic technology, because they want it to be dead.
I think Israeli operations in Gaza and Iran provide a much better example of the state of the art, and in both drones are distinctly second-fiddle adjuncts to manned aircraft and armored vehicles.
In Ukraine drones have filled a vacuum left by the destruction of Ukrainian and Russian armour, but for offensive operations the tank is still very much alive.
Adam Tipple
Reply to Jonathan Muller
Estimates are that FPV drones have been responsible for 65-70% of Russian tank losses. That’s a game which is economically unsustainable. Drones haven’t ‘filled a vacuum’, they created it.
John Youngs
Hamish, Most Brits should know that the Royal Armoured Corps and RTR in particular have played a very brave and effective role in British history, history that you are right to be proud of and your own part in that. Times change. Tanks still have a role to fight but their role is diminishing.
We are thankful for past service yet have to be pragmatic for the future.
iain morrison
10 x drones swarming on a tank.
Cost £50k
End of tank.
Cost £1-5m.
Simon Allen
What many commentators miss is that drones are largely defensive in nature. Yes, they can be used for offensive strikes (in the same way as missiles can) but not for offensive operations. And without sustained and decisive offensive ground operations it’s difficult to win a war.
That is why there is stalemate in Ukraine, as there was on the Western Front in WW1, for the same reason. Barbed wire and machine guns elevated the defensive over the offensive.
Advances in artillery techniques and, yes, the tank, and the development of combined arms operations restored the offensive. The same is likely to play out now, as Hamish suggests.
Paul Dodd
Reply to Simon Allen
Air and sea drones have also carried out strikes deep in Russian territory. Drones are basically unmanned, cheaper, lighter versions of manned vehicles such as aircraft, boats, subs etc. They could theoretically have a greater range.
I wonder if tanks have carried strike drones/ Interceptors, or will in the future? 🤔