Military Correspondent: Producing Current Tanks Is Pointless

January 29 2026 14 095 41

In a modern military conflict, even a tank operating from an indirect fire position is still an excellent target for drones, according to Russian military journalist Dmitry Steshin. According to him, to counter UAV attacks using electronic warfare systems, tank crews are forced to carry a separate generator, as the onboard electrical system cannot handle the load.

The main thing is to recognize that war in its past form will never return. Producing current tanks for the sake of tanks is pointless and very expensive. But stopping is difficult. Why? Here we enter the realm of the law on discrediting the army.

– Steshin reflects.

As a reminder, several weeks ago Rostec stated that, contrary to popular belief, tanks have not lost their importance on the battlefield as the primary strike force for breakthroughs.

At the same time, Russian engineers emphasize that future combat vehicles will retain a tracked chassis, advanced armor protection, and a medium- or large-caliber gun in a rotating turret. New requirements for protection, firepower, and, most importantly, situational awareness will be taken into account.

It should be emphasized that, according to estimates by Western military analysts, by 2035 Russia will be able to produce three thousand tanks annually.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Sergey Latyshev

0

29 January 2026 14: 50

If you remember that the media even boasted about old tanks and homemade products, right down to barns and fluffy hedgehogs...
Even the current tanks will come in handy.
Stud it with plastic needles, wire, an electronic warfare generator, + it would be good to invent a mini-air defense system.
A kind of hedgehog-shaped ball with a barrel, where on a pole on top there is a mini-radar with mini-air defense missiles and a machine gun with a grapeshot... and three thousand a year.
something like that.
Deathtiny

+1

29 January 2026 15: 06

that's it... the military-industrial complex issue is very political and heavily lobbyist.... )
We look at the military-industrial complex budget and understand the share of Uralvagonzavod, Almaz-Antey, USC, UAC, Kalashnikov... Where are the important people in important positions...
And any attempt to question the relevance of this or that type of technology/weaponry will inevitably be met with a wave of lobbyist-motivated "experts" claiming that "this will destroy the military-industrial complex and Russia as a whole"... And yes, those "questioning" can also be quite lobbyist-motivated, for example, for "investments in an innovative new state corporation" like the so-called "GosDronII Concern" ;)

P.S. Yes, that's true everywhere in the world, secrecy, "politicking," and limited market competition contribute to this. In this regard, the "think tanks for forecasting and analytics" that are friendly and close to Lockheed Martin, Rheinmetall, and Hyundai are no different.
Vladimir1155

-3

29 January 2026 20: 34

Obviously, we need to stop producing tanks and develop new tanks taking into account the necessary changes, and load the plant with the production of the 152 "Coalition" self-propelled guns.
1. Alexey Lan
  
  +3
  
  30 January 2026 00: 14
  
  Well, self-propelled guns are just as vulnerable to drones. What's really needed is universal armored vehicles to support tanks with powerful air defenses.
  1. Vladimir1155
    
    +4
    
    30 January 2026 10: 08
    
    Drones can hit anything, but to protect facilities, anti-drone systems are necessary, and they already exist. Self-propelled guns can relatively safely fire from closed positions up to 80 km away, protected by their air defenses. A tank is an assault vehicle that goes into battle where air defense systems haven't yet been installed. Tanks are needed, but not exactly the ones we have now, but modernized ones with their own anti-drone protection, or a cover tactic must be developed—for example, one tank for artillery, and another paired with anti-drone weapons. After the modernization is developed, it will be possible to resume production of tanks updated to take into account the realities of the 21st century.
  2. vBR
    
    +1
    
    30 January 2026 20: 39
    
    Only the air defense system shouldn't be powerful, but rather targeted at small drones. The same is needed for infantry and other vehicles.
    1. Vladimir1155
      
      +1
      
      30 January 2026 22: 29
      
      I agree with you: local, but effective and reliable air defense to cover assault vehicles and infantry. The tank's turret is large and heavy enough to be replaced with an air defense system for local missions, and let such a pair of tanks go into battle and cover our brave infantry.
2. Michael_2
  
  -1
  
  2 February 2026 02: 52
  
  Why? Tanks can be used safely in fog or bad weather. But if you drive vehicles into an open field under bright sunshine, no tank with protection will make it.
  1. Vladimir1155
    
    +1
    
    2 February 2026 10: 28
    
    In this age of radar, neither fog nor bad weather will save us... We need reliable protection against drones, that's all, and it has already been developed and is being delivered to the troops.
Pavel57

0

29 January 2026 21: 49

Do you need tanks for a war with NATO?
1. Vladimir Tuzakov
  
  -1
  
  29 January 2026 23: 05
  
  For a war with NATO, everything is needed, even cavalry, but nothing will help, because a war with NATO requires a nuclear one; otherwise, defeat awaits... Regarding tank production, in the USSR, some factories produced products that no one needed, but in return, they fulfilled their quotas and received bonuses. The same is true with tanks...
  1. Michael_2
    
    -1
    
    2 February 2026 02: 54
    
    In fact, there is no NATO. The Greenland situation demonstrated this. There is the US and the European pages. If the US doesn't step up to the plate for the Eurodwarfs, then BARS units or the same "Hispaniola" will crush the valiant European forces.
    1. Vladimir Tuzakov
      
      0
      
      2 February 2026 19: 06
      
      You have outdated ideas. Look at the pace of expansion of arms production in the EU; the construction of new facilities with an area of over 7 million square meters is no joke. In two to three years, there will be a huge amount of military production. Conclusion: the EU has realized that the US is no longer its protector and has begun arming itself. We can't throw hats at the EU anymore...
      1. Michael_2
        
        0
        
        3 February 2026 20: 51
        
        You can produce a billion military products, but it's the infantry that decides everything. If the infantry isn't prepared to shed blood, it will lose the war. So, those are old ideas of yours. And don't throw hats at them. A swarm of gerberas is enough. They'll easily replace hats.
        
        Vladimir Tuzakov
        
        -1
        
        4 February 2026 00: 17
        
        There's no infantry today, just assault troops, who attack in pairs and threes, just like all other vehicles. Conclusion: Your statements sound like conversations at a beer stand...
        
        Michael_2
        
        0
        
        5 February 2026 03: 43
        
        Well, it looks like you're at the beer stand. Don't confuse the crests with civilized Europeans. Civilized Europeans won't sit in a forested area under the scorching sun and tornadoes. And they won't attack through minefields. And they won't sit in cities and fight for every house. Conclusion: you know nothing about the European mentality and confuse them with ruiners. Go study history again.
Oleg Apushkin

+4

29 January 2026 23: 40

Steishin's opinion is unauthoritative and stupid; his job is journalism. So we can agree that there's no need for a machine gun.
Nick. WITH

0

30 January 2026 06: 05

Invisible planes, invisible tanks, invisible people, and machine guns too.
prior

-1

30 January 2026 09: 24

There is no point in producing current tanks

Why is it pointless?
How then to conduct tank biathlons?!
1. Michael_2
  
  0
  
  2 February 2026 02: 56
  
  Well, to put you at a target with a camera. I wonder which will be faster: the fired projectile or the wetting of your pants?
steelmaker

+1

30 January 2026 10: 18

There is no point in producing current tanks

I get the sense that the author prefers war donkeys and horses! The author has a problem with education! To write such nonsense! All our problems stem from one cause: incompetents and traitors in power!!

Even a tank operating from a closed firing position is still an excellent target for drones.

Another KNOW-HOW of today's commanders. Using a tank as artillery? Show me which academy teaches that! Then what are artillery and aircraft for?
They've been messing around in the sandbox for four years; naturally, they have to justify their incompetence somehow. It turns out our tanks are the wrong type!
1. Vladimir Tuzakov
  
  0
  
  30 January 2026 17: 10
  
  First, review the use of MBTs in the air defense and by year (over 9 MBTs destroyed). In the early years, Javelins and other missiles prevented tanks from being used en masse as intended. For the last two years, tanks haven't been used en masse due to UAVs. There were attempts to launch a massive strike in 2025 (up to 50 MBTs), but it ended disastrously: almost half were destroyed without any clear success. Things will only get worse for MBTs from now on. Today, MBTs are used as self-propelled guns: quickly engage in direct fire, then retreat to cover or operate from indirect positions after a few shots. Draw your own conclusions, or suggest how to use or replace expensive MBTs in these conditions (really, without the cheap pathos of old manuals).
  1. steelmaker
    
    -1
    
    31 January 2026 15: 45
    
    Tanks have not been used en masse for the last two years due to UAVs.
    
    Do you know what army air defense is? Why isn't it used? I've personally never seen it. Besides, tanks should be covered by infantry. Infantry, given the threat of UAVs, should be armed accordingly. Basically, our tanks are being used in violation of all regulations. The skies aren't cleared; the enemy has complete control of the situation. So there's no need to justify this crime.
    1. isofat
      
      0
      
      31 January 2026 15: 53
      
      Do you see the gopher? No. And I don't see it, but it's there.
Victor19

+2

30 January 2026 14: 05

More smart guys! A smart guy wrote this here too. Why do we need surface ships? Any anti-ship missile can cover them. What if we don't have a good fleet of surface ships? Any country can seize our tankers or other vessels.
Real_pots

+2

30 January 2026 15: 23

Tanks will remain relevant for a long time, but each period requires its own protective measures. Currently, passive and active defense require anti-drone capabilities—electronic warfare and automatic machine guns or net-launchers—but the most important thing is a modern self-propelled artillery system. Relying solely on the commander's and gunner's sights is outdated; external data from reconnaissance systems—satellite, aerial, and UAV—is needed. Everything happening around the tank must be visible within a radius of at least 30 km.
Kiril

+2

30 January 2026 16: 29

Let this expert on SVO replace the tank.
Alex Eustace

+2

30 January 2026 19: 16

In a nuclear war, no one will chase tanks with FPV drones, and armored vehicles, especially tanks, are very effective. Do they really think that the coming war with NATO will be similar to the current NBC war, if the Kremlin has the courage to use nuclear weapons.
1. Vladimir Tuzakov
  
  0
  
  31 January 2026 16: 24
  
  Remark: The Western enemy is switching to AI and unmanned weapons systems, and tanks and attack aircraft will be pursued by automated systems at full speed. Conclusion: There's no need to prepare for past wars.
  1. Michael_2
    
    -1
    
    2 February 2026 02: 58
    
    A stupid conclusion. At long range, an expensive weapon won't cut it. Conclusion: don't jump to conclusions.
    1. Vladimir Tuzakov
      
      0
      
      2 February 2026 14: 41
      
      At long range, expensive weapons won't do the trick.
      
      It's always been the case that the more expensive the weapon, the more reliable it is. Your statement is reminiscent of stupidity.
      1. Michael_2
        
        0
        
        3 February 2026 20: 52
        
        It's all in your head. Expensive weapons last a year, tops. If the conflict lasts longer than three years, you'll go down the drain. Sit down, duoika!
      2. Michael_2
        
        0
        
        3 February 2026 21: 03
        
        Regarding reliability: the Tiger was more expensive than the T-34. Actually, so were the Panther and the Königtiger. Who won the war? Same goes for the Messerschmitts, Fokkers, and Junkers. The war was won by the Yaks, Ils, and Petlyakovs, which were cheaper than their German counterparts.
        Vietnam. All American weapons are more expensive than Soviet ones. What's the bottom line? The whole myth that the more expensive a weapon is, the more reliable it is has long been dispelled. The price of a weapon depends on the customer's lobby and the required components. That's why the cheaper Iskander outshines the expensive Patriot. And the cheap Geraniums are Hymars.
        
        Vladimir Tuzakov
        
        -1
        
        4 February 2026 00: 13
        
        The Red Army won the war, but their overall losses were 9 to 2 for the Germans. (In the first two years of WWII, the Red Army's losses were 15 to 7 for the Germans.) The Wehrmacht's expensive weapons also contributed to this difference. (The Germans' overall tank losses were seven times lower.) This demonstrates the effectiveness of expensive weapons. German industry was completely bombed, hence the defeat. Conclusion: your understanding is at the level of a pioneer...
        
        Michael_2
        
        0
        
        5 February 2026 03: 50
        
        Yeah, right. But you forgot one small detail. The 9 are military and civilians. And civilians were the majority. That's where myths and lies are born. The Germans produced as many tanks as they lost. The effectiveness of their expensive weapons turned out to be no better than the cheaper Soviet ones. The defeat wasn't because their industry was destroyed by bombing, but because the Germans couldn't hold out in a long war. But you kept that quiet, too. And that's the second lie. So it turns out you're not a pioneer, but an alcoholic like Uncle Vasya. Lie better next time.
        
        Vladimir Tuzakov
        
        -1
        
        5 February 2026 14: 37
        
        Red Army and Wehrmacht losses, don't make up your own stories. Wehrmacht losses in Africa in 1943, where the Germans suffered a second Stalingrad and the entire Western Front, are not included. Conclusion: you can't wash black cable white...
        
        Michael_2
        
        -1
        
        6 February 2026 18: 29
        
        What Africa, you sicko? Why are you writhing around like a stripper on a pole? You've been reading a bunch of propaganda, and now you're talking nonsense about Africa.
        
        Vladimir Tuzakov
        
        0
        
        6 February 2026 20: 17
        
        To the ignorant, or rather, the liar: "Africa Corps" with its commander Rommel the Desert Fox, look it up online. Today, the Russian Armed Forces have copied the old name from the Wehrmacht. Don't be rude in the future, or you'll be considered one of those impudent and lying Jews.
        
        Michael_2
        
        -1
        
        7 February 2026 20: 17
        
        What does Rommel and the Eastern Front have to do with this? How beautifully you turned from Khatyn and Babi Yar to Rommel. And then you can pompously claim the Soviet Union suffered gigantic losses. Of course, that's if you're fighting civilians and exterminating them in Auschwitz and Majdanek. The Japanese also built a bunch of Nankings and can claim the Chinese suffered enormous losses.
        
        Vladimir Tuzakov
        
        0
        
        7 February 2026 20: 58
        
        You don't understand what was said to you, it seems there is a problem...
        
        Michael_2
        
        -1
        
        9 February 2026 20: 56
        
        It's your logic that's lacking, Tuzik. The anti-Soviet manual is starting to disintegrate.