The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence has shared a striking video showing an FPV drone destroying a Russian tank in a massive fireball.
The footage, shared on the ministry’s X account, was credited to the 46th Airmobile Brigade.
“Our drones will either find a way or make one,” the post read, showcasing the drone flying under the protective cage of the Russian tank before detonating and causing a significant explosion.
Were are they hitting a tank exactly with this kind of impact – and with what kind of ammunition?
— Jakob Skouboe (@JakobSkouboe) June 10, 2024
Using a live video feed from the drone’s camera, an operator guides it to the tank’s weak points – typically an open hatch, the engine, or ammunition stored in the turret. Once in position, the drone releases its payload, resulting in a violent explosion that sends large flames billowing into the sky. The tank shakes violently, bursts into pieces, and propels shrapnel and debris in all directions, leaving behind just a few burnt-out remnants of the Russian machinery.
The tank targeted in this operation is believed to be one of the so-called ‘turtle tanks,’ equipped with welded metal cages over their turrets in an attempt to protect them. The assault took place in the Donetsk region, where Russian forces have recently improved their battlefield positions.
This victory was achieved with a relatively small investment in an FPV drone, costing only a few hundred pounds, contrasting with the significant financial resources Russia expends on its tanks. These drones, often manufactured for up to £500 by volunteers, have become one of Ukraine’s most effective weapons in the war, serving roles from reconnaissance to direct attacks.
Yep, I watched this on funker530.com awhile back.
Aah this reflects a comment I made on the Crawford thread, Ukraine is adapting to the ‘turtle’ tanks aiming for the turret ring underneath the cover and setting off the ammo. The skill is amazing.
The drone still did not hit the tank and it was already exploding. Maybe an earlier drone?
Can someone answer the Twitter (X) guys comment for me? (im not on it). What are they hitting this tank with? The article says a £500 FPV drone but what is the warhead? Also the article says that the drone released the payload but the first footage is clearly from whatever hit the tank. Can a £500 drone carry a paveway or brimstone or whatever caused that level of destruction? It immediately exploded catastrophically….theres only a certain kind of munition that can do that surely? The video just doesn’t look right to me.
There are a large number of such videos on the web. As Dragonwight mentioned, Funker530 shows a few but many more are, as they say ‘out there’, many from various angles of the same strike. The explosions vary in scale. I believe the war heads are hollow charge. The tank design does the rest.
This rather supports my view that the tank like other war fighting technology may have had its day, if only on cost grounds: 2-2.5 million USD against 500 USD (and falling).
It does specifically seem to be an issue with Russian designed tanks…completely self destructing and killing the crew has been something that has been seen for a very long time..Arab Israeli conflicts have seen it, both iraq wars and a few other times Russian tanks have gone into combat…if the fighting compartment of a Russian tank is penetrated it seems to lead to the loss of the tank and crew.
Aircraft carriers can be sunk by submarines – has the carrier had its day too?
You are making an interesting comparison Graham. I think one has to look at the effects not the delivery system. Certainly any carrier will have to be closely guarded and not just from submarines. It is this cost – cost of operation as against delivering an objective – that is easily overlooked ( the ‘four operatives in the right place ‘ argument). Is there a better or emerging way to achieve one’s specific goals? That is the question. We are living in a time of bounding advances in technology, even compared to the beginning of this present century. About forty… Read more »
I am just a bit frustrated that people are predicting the demise of the tank just because there is a new counter system (and it happens to be cheap) – the attack drone. Some have predicted the demise of the tank for 40 or 50 years – to every counter there is a counter, be it offensive or defensive technology or better TTP. No-one seems to want to look at naval or air systems in the same way. It is just the tank that is singled out. If the tank really were obsolete why is no signficant tank-owning nation phasing… Read more »
Quite often the drone is carrying an RPG warhead with the nosecone pointing forward, the drone simply flies into the tank.
Hi BigH, I have seen reports on the BBC from the front line about a drone team called the Peaky Blinders (they are fans of the show and some of them even wear camo flat caps..!). The report is still on the BBC website Ukraine War page with a picture of the drones they use. There was an accompanying report on BBC1 showing them preparing a drone with an RPG warhead. They just use cable ties to attach the ‘warhead’ to the drone..! Some of the drones are fitted with a release mechanism – these are manufactured in Ukraine I… Read more »
A £500 drone carry Paveway? A Malloy T-600 heavy lift could barely carry a Paveway.
Russia’s losses can’t be all faked. A return to a war of movement following a break through, would increase their losses very significantly and there is no sensible answer to countering this new form of ‘video game warfare’. The ‘Turtle’ tank, Russia’s improvised solution, is not just peculiar, it’s inadequate. Better and more experienced minds will have to resolve the problems now facing ‘armoured’ warfare and quickly.
The “Turtle” conversion turns them into WW2 tank destroyers.
No.
WW2 Tank destroyers had good external visibilty. These don’t.
Also plenty of WW2 tank destroyers had turrets that rotated, eg:
M10
M36
M18
Achillies
Firefly
Challenger (not the current one)
M3 MGC
M6 MGC
There’s a habit of conflating “Tank Destroyers” in General with German “Assault guns” which *could* be Tank Destroyers, but the vast majority where in fact Infantry Support vehicles (over 10,000 Stug III’s where build, with another 2-3,000 StuG IV’s and StuH 42, by comparison no German Tank Destroyer got much past 2,000 built, and most designs didn’t even get close to 1,000)
They want to know if Challenger 3 is any good. Give it to the Ukrainian army. It will get an honest test
The fact tanks and armoured vehicles are being lost in their thousands by Russia indicates a few things 1) the lack of air superiority triggered this type of fighting Russia’s inability to gain and maintain air superiority is damning 2) All armoured vehicles now entering a drone infested combat zone must have an APS. This is a key requirement for the British army and the MOD must get their act together and sort this out. 3) attached air defence units. Ideally a radar guided guns or automatic turret weapon system with HMG or canon for drone defences are vital. 3)… Read more »
I don’t disagree but doesn’t change my initial statement
To answer some of your comments. 1. I still find it hard to believe that Russia does not have air superiority at least over the battlefield. Due to NATO’s aircraft, they invested heavily in GBAD and SHORAD. But seemed to have forgotten about SEAD/DEAD when faced by an opposition who have similar capabilities. As their Kh-31P/PM anti-radiation missile is quite frankly rubbish. But the Pantsir, Tor and S400 have all been found wanting. 2. APS is definitely part of the solution. But its sensors and effectors must be able to detect, track and engage targets flying directly above the vehicle.… Read more »
It remains to be seen if drones can be defeated by currently available APS.