>Abrams still has 0 (ZERO) anti-drone defense systems Is

p sure its called CROWS.

>>35028814

Has the CROWS even been tested against Drones, let alone actually used to shoot one down?

Considering those things have only ever dropped grenade-sized bombs, Id say that being a tank is an anti-drone defense system in of itself. That bomb was only effective at all because the commander was turned out.

>>35028862
>only ever dropped grenade-sized bombs

I very much doubt it's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future

>>35028970
we've got time.

>>35028802
This isn't your daycare. Stop fucking off in class.

Which tanks have anti-drone defence again? I keep forgetting their names

>>35028802
american tanks never operate alone. they alway have bradleys full of infantry with stingers and javelins plus whatever sneaky anti drone support vehicles we are working on

tl;dr doctrinally ok, but not for arabs

>>35028802
>Bomblet did literally no damage to tank
>This is even the export version of the Abrams with weaker armor
>The only reason the guy was killed because he was stood up outside the hatch

1/10 baito , it made me reply

File: China_s_HJ-10_NLOS_and_Mounted_ATGM_demo.webm (3MB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x240px

>the Abrams will literally die like shitty T-55s to China's many top-attack weapons.

File: 534534.jpg (121KB, 1280x876px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1280x876px

>>35028862

>>35030531
It didn't even hit the top.

>>35029038
Type 99
Merkava
T-14

File: Full-Metal-Jacket-images-b65e1177-7fcb-4ffa-b984-61731bd43e8.jpg (119KB, 780x439px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 780x439px

>>35028970
I dunno, I doubt an effective drone will be made any time soon that can carry heavy enough ordinance to damage the tank.

Fuck, we would be better off spending the money to develop anti drone weapons for infantry, because they are a hell of a lot more exposed to this than a tank is.

>>35030968
They have situational awareness and rifles.

>>35030968
How heavy do you think ordnance should be to damage tank?

File: 3c2cef47ad4f434ad85aa0906008c90c.jpg (248KB, 1280x883px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1280x883px

>>35028802

>>35031000
chinks btfo, yet again

>>35030679
>>35030940
Dont assume that they cant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyopUtQ3j00

Becaue they can. (1:13)

Different trajectories are optional before launch.

>>35030972
All the better, they have the eyes and ears to take down the drones with.

File: 1502247689093.gif (2MB, 363x204px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 363x204px

>>35030972
All the footage I've seen of people engaging drones looks like a ton of guys taking potshots at the drone til it flys away. Maybe it's because these videos are also of Muslims, but I figure a drone is probably a hard shot for most people. Maybe counter drones with little .22 machine guns on them would do the trick imo.
>>35030984
I did a little research to find the thickness of the top armor, but I did find a forum post describing what a 500lb bomb would do to an Abrams. From here I just downscaled it to 155mm shell because that's a bit more realistic to get on a drone, at 100lbs, and that it has the potential to fuck the tank up with a top hit. I know little about drone tech, but I doubt any of them can carry over 15 lbs yet.

>>35030968
Already on it
https://kitup.military.com/2017/03/skynet.html
Fucking BudK sells them
http://www.budk.com/12-Gauge-Skynet-Drone-Defense-–-3-Pack-35975

>>35031193
Those shells are probably a step in the right direction, but I've found drones that can go up to 1km up. Though through some research I have seen that drones will never hurt a tank. Even the best can only carry about 5-10kg.

Guess they plan to fight drones with drones

>>35030947
None of those have anti drone weapons.

>>35031160
We could take these seeker bomblets from a CBU-105 and strap a few to a drone, these things fuck up tanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFP_5vTiPcI

>>35031356
Any quadcopter-style drone that can carry 10 kg will be large, loud, and easily downed with automatic weapons fire. The only reason they're seeing "success" (dropping 50 grams of explosive with 5 meter accuracy lol) with these tiny drones is that they're very small and difficult to see/hit.

>>35028802
The crew have sidearms

>>35028802
Using drones against a first world opponent is literally the stupidest thing you could possibly do.
A. drones are fucked by EW.
B. drones are just another type of CAS
C. CAS is fucked by air superiority. Especially drones, which are very low performance compared to fighters.
D. There is no current force on earth which could expect to maintain air superiority versus the united states.

>>35036937
thanks armchair general

>>35030968
>develop anti drone weapons for infantry

You mean a shotgun? Like a semi auto with a heavy load and chokes?

ffs

>>35037912

How high do you think drones fly?

How effective do you think drone cameras can see?

File: 5ad6874988eccfc919e0861aad5b8e7f.jpg (407KB, 1600x1089px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 1600x1089px

>>35028970
>I very much doubt it's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future

son...

Couldn't a drone drop a modified HEAT shell on top of a tank?
Or just a good ol' bucket of thermite?

>>35038501
Are you trying to imply a tank should be able defend against bombers?

>>35028802
>ISIS sends waves of these things, most of them miss or malfunction if some farmer conscript doesn't shoot them down with his grandpa's AK
>Scroll through dozens of videos
>Find one that not only hit it's target but happened to hurt someone because it just happens the timing was perfect

Proof, gentleman, that a tank is no match for a drone you buy at walmart.

>>35036937
>C. CAS is fucked by air superiority. Especially drones, which are very low performance compared to fighters.

"let's send an F-18 to take out that cheap 100 dollar quadrotor that some hadji was storing on his backpack"

>>35039903
>what are laser Strykers

>>35039915

i'll take "not a feasible frontline solution"

mount the lasers in the tanks themselves, or adapt a Trophy system to target them, for christ's sake.

>>35036997
He's not wrong.

>>35039903
>100 dollars
boy I wish

Quads are not the real problem here. If you want a fast maneuverable suicide drone like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5SI1BLdozk they're limited to about 700 grams, and that's really pushing it. On a really light 5 inch frame with a 1300 MaH battery that only gives it a flight time of about 4 minutes, it's already around 500 grams. Good luck doing shit with a 200 gram payload.

As for your more traditional quad or even octocopter that can carry something heftier, they are loud, big, and slow.