You need both.
Because tanks can do things drones can’t.
This exact same question was asked when people made big antitank rifles, and again when fighters started bombing tanks. Then again with basic AT missiles, and again with things like Javelin.
And tanks can do things all those weapon systems can’t, so there’s still a place for tanks.
I mean, tanks and IFVs with infantry take and hold ground.
Drones are use to harass units, saturate AD and basically deny ground taking advances.
These are different tactical issues with their own importance.
Because they make a lot of sense. Take a look at Ukraine. Armored vehicles carry jammers and cope cages. They make proper hits much harder. Modern tanks, which are used in Ukraine, are also well enough armored to take multiple hits, before going down. Artillery is still cheaper and more destructive per shoot. Especially in combination with spotter drones, it is extremely deadly. That is why Ukraine is building them.
Obviously drones have a huge impact, but we still see both artillery and armored vehicles being used and delivered. Clearly there are reasons for that.
Is there still a drone threat if one of these canons is close-by?
These are estimated to cost EUR 12M per unit.
If drones cost EUR 10k - 50k, then you can get over 200 to 1000 units for that money.
Will it be able to stop several hundred drones coming at it?
It will probably be guarding something that’s worth another couple 10M, like a tank platoon.
I’m sure that these will have many good uses. In many cases you can be sure that you won’t be facing huge drone swarms. But for large scale warfare, we really need some new ideas.
Also: This has been in development since 2018 and is still not rolled out. There’s another issue raised in the article.
“…armored vehicles look obsolete.”
The same old song sung after exactly every bigger military confrontation since their invention.
And guess what… more than a century later nothing actually changed. Tanks and armored vehicles perform a function. One that drones cannot replicate. And so tanks and and armored vehicles will (again) adapt to fullfil their function under changed conditions.
You are both right. Armored vehicles still serve a function, but I think it is fair to say that that function has diminished or at least changed significantly.
The better comparison would be the Maginot-line.
It’s not that the Maginot line didn’t work, though new technologies like shaped charges made it more vulnerable. It got by-passed. And it’s not even like that was a sure thing. If the german tank columns had been caught by bombers on those narrow, winding roads through the Ardennes, the offensive might have ended in a massacre. But somehow, they failed to spot huge armies invading their country.
Eventually, what we have is a failure to accept paradigm shifts. They take new technology to make existing tools better. They fail to anticipate and prepare for the changes that new technology means for the way things are done.