Can Russian Monster Tanks Reclaim The Battlefield From Drones?

T-72 with ‘porcupine’ or ‘dread’ armor add-ons

Russian MoD

Tanks are becoming steel porcupines in the latest round of improvised armor upgrades in Ukraine. First seen on Russian tanks , this bizarre ‘Dread’ armor with arranys of metal rods or spikes is now being replicated by Ukraine. And it seems to work.

“For those mocking armored vehicles and specially turtle tanks and thinking drones are a Wunderwaffe that have rendered armor obsolete, take a look at the sheer amount of FPVs that are required to destroy a well uparmored tank,” wrotes OSINT analyst Jonpy last week on Twitter/X , with a video of an action in which a Russian tank takes several FPV strikes to destroy.

But it is not quite time to celebrate the return of the tank as master of the battlefield.

“FPVs are effective against any type of armored vehicle if you can strike the right location,” ‘Michael,’ Commander of the Typhoon drone unit of the National Guard of Ukraine told me. “You need a skilled operator who can fully control the drone and identify the vulnerable points in the armor.”

It turns out even the monster porcupines can be stopped — if the drone operator knows how.

Tank Evolution: Cope Cages To Turtle Tanks

At the opening of the 2022 invasion Russian tanks were fitted with frames called ’cope cages’ or ’barbecues.’ These were largely ineffective. FPVs, racing drones carrying repurposed RPG warheads, destroyed vast numbers of armored vehicles, often with spectacular explosions as stored ammunition was detonated

Western tanks have proved more robust to FPVs. Even when the vehicle is destroyed, designs optimized for crew protection usually mean the occupants get out alive. One Ukrainian Leopard 1 tank was only immobilized after eight hits; the crew evacuated, and it took three more FPVs to destroy it. In another incident a U.S. supplied Abrams tank was only stopped after being hit by at least six FPVs, and the crew escaped uninjured.

“They apparently hit the engine,” the tank commander told Ukrainian press. “But they couldn’t penetrate either the turret or the hull while we were inside, even though they had plenty of time.”

The tank had been specially upgraded with additional armor and custom roof netting to catch FPVs.

This is not uncommon. According to a recent report by the UK’s RUSI thinktank, “With appropriate modification, armour can survive 10–15 FPV hits while suffering repairable damage.”

(Note the word ‘can’ here: survivor bias in reporting means that vehicles destroyed by the first few FPVs, often seen in video, may noit be reported.)

Modifications typically include a generous covering of explosive reactive armor tiles which effectively blunt the shaped charge warheads carried by FPVs. It takes multiple hits in the same place to get through, and tiles can be replaced easily if the tank survives.

The Russians took the idea further, and by 2024 they started fielding ‘turtle tanks’ covered in a complete armored shell. Also known as ‘sheds’ or ‘mobile barns’, this configuration prevents the turret rotating and was mainly seen in breaching vehicles which push mine rollers at the head of an assault. The turtle shell reduces visibility and makes it impossible to rotate the turret but absorbs FPV strikes. The tanks also carry less ammunition to avoid the risk of explosions.

“It’s a deliberate trade-off,” says Michael. “Sacrificing offensive capability for survivability, converting tanks into heavily armored battering rams.”

On his site The Armourer’s Bench, Mike Moss has compiled an extensive catalog of turtle tank varieties and their tactical use. At first it took artillery strikes to stop them, but within months the turtles could be knocked out by repeated FPV hits as operators honed their technique. Some were destroyed embarassingly easily.

Monster Movie Armor

Metals shells have been replaced with projecting spikes, less like traditional armor and more recalling movie vehicles like Buzzard Tribe vehicles in Mad Max: Fury Road or the iconic spiked VW Beetle in The Cars That Ate Paris.

The metal extensions are highly functional: attacking FPVs are impaled, deflected or detonated before they can get close enough to do real damage. In the incident referenced above in July, a Russian ‘monster tank’ reportedly took almost 60 FPVs to stop.

The number was inflated in later retellings to ‘more than 70’ FPV hits. Russian supporters inflated the number further, claiming the monster tank survived 110 FPVs and several bombs from Baba Yaga heavy bombers.

Several other Russian dread armor vehicles have been seen, none of them has matched the success (though limited) of this example. One Russian tank commander claims his upgraded vehicle kept moving after 27 FPV hits but this cannot be verified.

Tank Killing, Step By Step

Michael confirms that even unmodified Russian tanks often take multiple hits to destroy.

“In most cases, it takes several FPVs to destroy an armored vehicle,” said Michael. “The process usually goes in stages: first, you need to stop the heavy armor, then destroy it.”

Some times it can take a lot.

“20+ hits represent an extreme case with heavily protected vehicles and active countermeasures, but requiring multiple FPVs for a single armored target is typical rather than unusual,” says Michael.

For an FPV operator, the first issue is making it through jamming.

“The challenge is having the right equipment for that specific sector of the frontline to see the clear picture — drones operating on the proper frequencies for both control and video transmission to bypass local jamming,” says Michael.

Even with fiber drones which are immune to jamming, factors like weather conditions, artillery fire, and other drones mean that a hit is not guaranteed.

While aiming at the tracks might seem the obvious way to stop a tank, Michael says that this is rarely the preferred option.

“You lose clear picture due to interference and ground effect, making it hard to see specific components like wheels or tracks. Additionally, these are moving targets that require exceptional precision,” says Michael. “And wheels and tracks are often protected with additional armor or rubber side skirts specifically to prevent mobility kills. So operators typically aim for larger, more visible targets higher on the vehicle — where they have better video clarity and higher probability of achieving meaningful damage.”

A typical FPV carries a payload of 4-8 pounds, significantly less than an artillery round or the Javelin anti-tank missile’s 20-pound warhead. Some commentators say that FPVs just are not big enough to tackle uparmored tanks, but Michael disagrees.

“It’s less about warhead size and more about precision and penetration,” says Michael. “Even smaller warheads can be devastating when placed correctly by a skilled operator who knows where armor is thinnest.”

This was the problem with the monster tank: the FPV operators had difficulty identifying where the weak spots were. They had never encountered this type of armor before, and drones were wasted trying to break through the mass of spikes. These destroyed drones can be seen on the video.

Tank evolution is moving towards a tank entirely covered in a cloud of metal extensions leaving no way through for drones. But that does not mean it’s Game Over for FPVs.

EFP: Hitting From A Distance.

Brian Davis, CEO of Kraken Kinetics, a U.S, company specializing in munitions for small drones, says that the dread armor only works because of the type of warhead currently carried by FPVs. Known as a conical shaped charge or HEAT (‘High Explosive Anti-Tank’) this works by blasting a narrow jet of metal at high velocity when it detonates. The jet is powerful enough to go through steel, but rapidly loses focus and needs to be set off at an exact distance.

“Shaped charge jets require near‑ideal standoff,” says Davis. “If not, they can stretch and break into particles and lose penetration capability.”

This is why causing an RPG warhead to detonate several feet away greatly reduces its ability to go through armor. An alternate design, known as an explosively formed projectile or EFP, is effective from much greater ranges. This fires an aerodynamic slug of metal rather than a jet.

“An EFP is often better suited against vehicles fitted with cages, nets, or other standoff barriers,” says Davis. “EFPs form a coherent projectile that tolerates variable standoff.”

EFPs are already used in Ukraine in weapons like the Bonus artillery round. This dispenses submunitions which detect armored vehicles and fire EFPs on them from hundreds of feet above, punching through the thin top armor.

Kraken already produces small EFP munitions for drones for the U.S. military. This has a smart ‘height of burst’ sensor to detonates the warhead as it approaches, effectively firing a giant bullet which will go right through nets, cages, rods or metal shells.

If spiked armor becomes popular, expect to see EFP rounds taking it out soon afterwards. For the present, the current FPV warheads work fine against the targets they encounter.

“Currently, tanks are quite rare targets due to changes in Russian tactics,” says Michael. “The shift to infantry-focused tactics means most of our FPV operations now target lighter vehicles and personnel.”

As data from Ukraine’s Unmanned Forces show, the vast majority of FPVs are used against foot soldiers and other unarmored targets, and even a 4-pound warhead may be overkill.

“When tanks do appear, they’re typically part of concentrated breakthrough attempts after infantry probes have failed, making them high-priority targets that draw multiple drone operators’ attention,” says Michael.

Even when it takes 20 FPVs to destroy a tank, with so many operators around, and FPVs costing $500 and produced by the million, the add-on armor buys a few extra minutes. This gives crews a chance to escape but does not change the balance between tanks and drones.