Compass Points - Google & Tanks?
Google may know everything --but not tanks.
Compass Points - Google & Tanks?
Google may know everything --but not tanks.
July 13, 2026
.
For some time, former Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, has been giving speeches about the future of war. One of his recurring themes is tanks are “useless.”
.
----------------------------
----------------------------
.
Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, made waves at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Saudi Arabia by urging the U.S. military to shift from tanks to AI-powered drones, citing the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as evidence.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Schmidt argued that the effectiveness of a $5,000 drone against a $5 million tank underscores the obsolescence of traditional armored vehicles in modern warfare.
-- Dagens, “Ex-Google CEO Says Tanks Are “Useless” — Drones Are the Future”
.
----------------------------
----------------------------
.
Those overly excited by new technologies have repeatedly declared the end of tanks. After one massive war, many military analysts declared that new technologies made tanks obsolete. That was after World War I. Tanks, of course, continued to be irreplaceable tools on battlefields for than 100 years after they were first declared obsolete. For over a century, infantry on the battlefield have needed tanks. And tanks on the battlefield have need infantry.
Are tanks obsolete? Author and Marine Ben Connable reconsiders the question in his recent LinkedIn column.
.
----------------------------
----------------------------
.
Ben Connable, PhD’s Post
.
Military innovation is necessary for success in war. But innovation absent informed context is potentially dangerous. Statements like this one by industry leader Eric Schmidt (and generally inverse but equally unrealistic statements like those by Rheinmetall CEO Armen Papperger) reveal a lack of both historical and global appreciation for the facts of war. We owe it to ourselves and to the future of our tech-industrial partnerships to better inform our business leaders. And when they make statements like this we must be prepared with objective facts to ensure we guide innovation rather than let partly-informed technical innovators decide our future security.
As the image indicates: Taking tanks out of a fight has been a relatively cheap activity since the introduction of the tank. German K-rounds in WWI had a low probability of success but cost pennies to manufacture. Molotov Cocktails cost about a pint of gas, a bit of paraffin and some tar, and destroyed many tanks in the mid-20th Century. Early anti-tank rockets cost the equivalent of a few hundred dollars; newer versions of those shape-charge anti-tank rockets are the same munitions used on FPV drones today. Even a Javelin ATGM - remember St. Javelin? - costs about 10% of a modern T-72 tank.
About 4 or 5 tanks have been lost each day in Ukraine since 2022, far fewer than in previous wars. But that comparative number by itself is meaningless. Tanks are more or less useful in different parts of the Ukraine War for many reasons, most of which center on the extraordinarily well developed and fairly static front line, heavy use of mines, and a dense drone network that does not exist and probably cannot exist anywhere else in the world.
Tanks were used in roughly 70% of 21st Century ground battles through 2022. Why? Because any military force that wants to take and hold ground needs to smash and kill another military force taking or holding ground. Mobile protected firepower is part of the calculus. There are no magical or even technical solutions to this problem.
Instead of thinking about the value of tanks relative to the cost of drones, think about how Western armies have allowed risk-averse tank design costs to balloon and available tank inventories to dwindle. Our industrial approach is unsustainable.
Here’s a better way for Schmidt and Papperger to think about tanks: They remain relevant and needed. But they will be destroyed in war (Ukraine, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, etc.) by relatively cheap weapons including drones, mines, rockets, missiles, artillery, IEDs, etc. That has been normal for over 100 years and remains the norm. Integrate drones and counter-drone tech AND find a way to make Western tanks cheaper and in greater quantities. Otherwise we’re leaving our infantry in the lurch. And if our infantry cannot succeed we cannot expect to win land wars.
--Ben Connable, PhD Post (LinkedIn)
.
----------------------------
----------------------------
.
Compass Points salutes author and Marine Ben Connable for his continuing insights and research on warfighting. When US Marines are fighting on the ground in some future crisis, the Marines will need all the protection and assistance they can get. When rounds are exploding, Marines will not need help from Google. Marines will need help from tanks
.
- - - - -
.
Dagens - 10/30/2024
Ex-Google CEO Says Tanks Are “Useless” — Drones Are the Future
By Camilla Jessen Camilla Jessen
https://www.dagens.com/news/ex-google-ceo-says-tanks-are-useless-drones-are-the-future
.
- - - - -
.
Home - Ben Connable
.
- - - - -
.
Ben Connable - PhD Post
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7482074251953610752/
.
- - - - -
.
For over 100 years pundits have declared tanks obsolete. Virtually every analysis talked about the cost of the tank killing technology. The tank survives and thrives. Attacks from the air seemed to be the solution but they were not.
The proper employment of tanks and icw anti air weaponry remains powerful and fearsome.
When Gen Berger “ divested” the Corps of tanks I knew immediately that he was historically ignorant, technologically lost and intellectually deficient or he was getting very bad advice. He doubled down on tube artillery removing all doubt.
The tank will remain viable for another hundred years. It will be around long after most anti tank promises are gone.
For every weapons system that is developed sooner or later there will be a counter to that system. The same way with drones. Already there are AA systems being developed with small caliber munitions to take on drones. One old system which is bring used in Ukraine is the German Gepard SPAA gun.
Critics of the tank fail to realize that the tank by itself is a vulnerable weapon, just like any weapon. Infantryman by themselves are vulnerable. Field artillery by itself is vulnerable. A military force with just drones would also be a vulnerable force. However, the combined force of infantry, armor, artillery, and now drones when used properly is a tough force to beat. The synergy of all four elements is what makes it so dynamic. That's why it's called the combined-arms team. That is what the Marine Corps used to have.