About MBT's,etc, I think that it is much too early for deciding comments about the nature of this war and about speculations that the nature of war is changing .
Why ?
Because we have almost no information about this war .
Human casualties ? Only propaganda claims .
Material casualties ? Only propaganda claims,eagerly spread by ignorant and absent journalist searching how to fill their papers.
We don't know how many Russian tanks were lost, and why (by drones, classic weapons, and, especially by non-combat causes :every one knows that non-combat causes are the biggest causes of tank losses and also that tanks are fit only for small distances .)
About the drones : how many drones do have the Ukrainians ? How many were used ? How many were successful ?
How many tanks did use the Russians ? How many were lost ? Could it not be so that the Russians used too many tanks and that there was not enough protection for these tanks by infantry and artillery ?

There is certainly some merit to that argument, both sides are under reporting losses and over reporting kills but there are numerous open source methods of identifying the damage being done, I am inclined to think that NATO estimates are relatively accurate.
I would also point out that this is the second conflict that seems to have been determined by drones, the first being the Azerbaijan/Albanian one where a highly mechanized force was effectively destroyed by basic combat drones.

I also think it is relatively accurate to say that western ATGMs and ManPADs are effective given the results we have seen, certainly we don't know the ratios of units fired vs hits but we have seen enough hits to know that they do work.

I still remain very sceptical : I don't believe the propaganda of the drones lobby that
a the Russians failed because Ukraine had drones
b the Russians would have won if Ukraine had no drones .
The truth is that the Russians could win only if there was a miracle : if in the first days the Ukrainian resistance collapsed,which would make possible a fast advance to the western Ukrainian border and would save the Russians from the mission impossible to conquer Kiev.
Time was essential for the Russians who tried to defeat and to occupy a country as big as France with 35 million people,using a small army of 200000 men and a lot of tanks ,tanks which were committed because there was a lack of manpower, not because Ukraine had a lot of tanks .
A siege of Kiev would be a disaster for Russia as it would prevent an advance to the western border .
Russia could only afford a fast,quick and cheap war and this would essentially depend on the willingness of the Ukrainians to fight, not on the use of drones .
If Ukraine collapsed at the end of February, drones would not save her in March.
If Ukraine decided to fight and to continue to fight, the absence of drones would not save the Russians .
Drones were not used in Afghanistan, but still the Russians failed and the use of drones in Afghanistan by the US and their allies would not have stopped the taliban .

Originally Posted by lljadw

I still remain very sceptical : I don't believe the propaganda of the drones lobby that
a the Russians failed because Ukraine had drones
b the Russians would have won if Ukraine had no drones .
The truth is that the Russians could win only if there was a miracle : if in the first days the Ukrainian resistance collapsed,which would make possible a fast advance to the western Ukrainian border and would save the Russians from the mission impossible to conquer Kiev.
Time was essential for the Russians who tried to defeat and to occupy a country as big as France with 35 million people,using a small army of 200000 men and a lot of tanks ,tanks which were committed because there was a lack of manpower, not because Ukraine had a lot of tanks .
A siege of Kiev would be a disaster for Russia as it would prevent an advance to the western border .
Russia could only afford a fast,quick and cheap war and this would essentially depend on the willingness of the Ukrainians to fight, not on the use of drones .
If Ukraine collapsed at the end of February, drones would not save her in March.
If Ukraine decided to fight and to continue to fight, the absence of drones would not save the Russians .
Drones were not used in Afghanistan, but still the Russians failed and the use of drones in Afghanistan by the US and their allies would not have stopped the taliban .

I don't disagree however drones have become an important weapon on the battlefield, their presence in the Ukrainian arsenal helped slow the Russian advance which put Kiev out of range for them.

I doubt it was the Russian plan to fight it's way to Lviv with the forces it had at its disposal but I am prepared to bet that it expected to have control of Odessa, Kyiv and Kharkiv within a couple of days.

The war between Azerbaijan and Armenia showed what drones can do during armed conflicts. Drones aren't only good for neutralizing the enemy's positions, vehicles, air bases, and other important targets. Smaller drones are useful for surveillance and providing commanders with real-time data. Drones are extremely useful for the artillery for hitting the targets and adjusting the artillery fire. Are the drones decisive for the outcome of the war? Probably they are if they provide with intelligence for commanders and make it easier to hit the enemy.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The war between Azerbaijan and Armenia showed what drones can do during armed conflicts. Drones aren't only good for neutralizing the enemy's positions, vehicles, air bases, and other important targets. Smaller drones are useful for surveillance and providing commanders with real-time data. Drones are extremely useful for the artillery for hitting the targets and adjusting the artillery fire. Are the drones decisive for the outcome of the war? Probably they are if they provide with intelligence for commanders and make it easier to hit the enemy.

The results of drones depend also and mainly on the number of artillery pieces and their ammunition .
Next year Hollywood will make a SF movie where men and especially women,sitting behind computer screens,will decide the war by killing ,without seeing them,enemy soldiers .
We all know that this remains fiction .
We should not believe the propaganda from the intelligence lobby and the drones producers who claim that they will win the war on their own .
It is already bad enough that a whole generation has been indoctrinated by the story that Bletchley Park won WW 2 .
In WW2 most information from BP and the B Dienst was already useless when it reached the concerning HQs .
It is the same for the drones : we have heard the story of a very big Russian column of tanks and trucks (a length of dozens of km ) and now this propaganda story has mysteriously disappeared,because this column was not destroyed by Ukrainian drones .
Why ?
Because the drones could not detect the column and could not destroy him .Drones are slow ,are not invulnerable,how many drones are needed to destroy 10 tanks ? Ten, twenty ..?
And here we talk about a classic war , not about a guerilla war : drones have failed in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Syria : most people killed by drones were innocent civilians .The US had a lot of drones,but still had to use bombers to destroy ISIS in Raqqa.
If the drones could not eliminate ISIS in Raqqa,how could they eliminate Russian tanks ?
The answer is : with luck .
Ukraine is using drones because it is too poor to have a modern air force .
The explosives from a drone are that low that they need 100 % precision for a small success . And tanks are moving targets , not immobile targets .
There is no proof that drones have more success than missiles : both usually are killing innocents .
The propaganda from the drones lobby is that drones do not kill innocents .There are not such weapons .

Azerbaijan used in its war against Armenia missiles, long-range artillery and drones.And a lot of other things .
But there is no proof that the use of missiles, long-range artillery and drones (or 1 or 2 of these 3 ) gave Azerbaijan its victory and there is no proof that if these weapons ( or 1 or 2 of them ) were not used,this would have resulted in a draw or a victory of Armenia .
One must not forget that the weaknesses/decisions from Armenian side had as much importance in the outcome of the war,as the strength/decisions from Azerbaijan side : there are always 2 sides in a war .
One can also argue that not Azerbaijan won but that Armenia lost .

Drones are cheaper than regular aircrafts and they provide commanders with real time surveillance of the enemy. They provide the artillery and mortar units with target acquisitions. The smaller drones provides even infantry platoons with data about where the enemy is. These kind of drones are also used by emergency services to get a bird eyes view of the area impacted by a flood or a forest fire.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Drones are cheaper than regular aircrafts and they provide commanders with real time surveillance of the enemy. They provide the artillery and mortar units with target acquisitions. The smaller drones provides even infantry platoons with data about where the enemy is. These kind of drones are also used by emergency services to get a bird eyes view of the area impacted by a flood or a forest fire.

This is assuming that
a there are artillery and mortar units available
b that these will receive this real time surveillance
c that they are able to attack the enemy
d that these attacks will be precise attacks
All these are assumptions and given the fact that there is no information about the number of Russian tanks destroyed by drones, with the help of drones, one must wait til the end of the war for conclusions .
Besides : if drones give data about where the enemy is, but not about the intentions of the enemy and not about his strength,an intelligent platoon commander will not use his ammunition and will not give away his position by replying on the news from drones .
Last point : most people killed by drones in Iraq and Afghanistan were innocent civilians ,who can assure us that there will be no collateral damage in Ukraine if drones are committed ?
Artillery kills civilians, missiles and aircraft kill civilians, why should drones not kill civilians ?

Originally Posted by lljadw

This is assuming that
a there are artillery and mortar units available
b that these will receive this real time surveillance
c that they are able to attack the enemy
d that these attacks will be precise attacks
All these are assumptions and given the fact that there is no information about the number of Russian tanks destroyed by drones, with the help of drones, one must wait til the end of the war for conclusions .
Besides : if drones give data about where the enemy is, but not about the intentions of the enemy and not about his strength,an intelligent platoon commander will not use his ammunition and will not give away his position by replying on the news from drones .
Last point : most people killed by drones in Iraq and Afghanistan were innocent civilians ,who can assure us that there will be no collateral damage in Ukraine if drones are committed ?
Artillery kills civilians, missiles and aircraft kill civilians, why should drones not kill civilians ?

While all true to some degree it does not change the fact that drones have provided a lot of valuable information, the ability to attack indirect targets with some precision and a "safer" way to hit command and control locations well behind front lines, they are essentially a force multiplier.