For more than a century, tank battles were primarily decided by brute strength, heavily armored tanks, and fast speeds. Larger cannons, more robust armor, quicker engines were all the major features of tank fights, but the battle arena has got a brand new participant: small, inexpensive, and flying. The drones are disrupting the game by attacking from the locations that tank crews have never considered. While armored vehicles remain the main force among ground troops, the latter now have a greater challenge to transform their tactics than before.

Here’s a countdown of the world’s top 10 tanks in active use today, and how each is standing its ground in this new era of aerial threats.

10. T-90 — Russia’s Workhorse

The T-90 marries an upgraded Soviet chassis with new armor and firepower. Its 125mm smoothbore cannon and reactive armor make it deadly against conventional opponents, and its light weight provides acceptable agility. But as recent wars have demonstrated, even a heavily armored T-90 can be defeated by a $1,000 drone with the proper targeting.

9. Type 99 — The Contender

Equipped with a 125mm cannon, composite armor, and computer fire control, Type 99 is the Chinese response to NATO’s heavyweights. Active protection systems enable it to resist missile attacks and drones, but with UAV technology moving so rapidly, safety requires frequent upgrades.

8. Leclerc — France’s Digital Brawler

France’s Leclerc carries a 120mm smoothbore gun, modifiable armor, and a very high rate of fire. Its advanced electronics enable rapid target pickup, but as with all tanks of this type, its initial designers never expected a battlefield swarming with weaponized quadcopters.

7. K2 Black Panther — South Korea’s Tech Tank

The K2 is among the world’s most advanced tanks. Its 120mm gun, sensor technology, and networked systems are combined with active protection that’s designed to combat drones as well as missiles. Agile enough to complement its firepower, the K2 is built for today’s drone-heavy battlefield.

6. Type 90 — Japan’s Agile Striker

Japan’s Type 90 was designed to be fast and accurate. Its 120mm cannon and high-powered engine provide it with superior agility, and its computer systems improve crew effectiveness. Even this agile platform, however, needs to continue to adapt to remain superior to hordes of FPV drones.

5. Merkava Mk 4 — Israel’s Fortress on Tracks

The Merkava Mk 4 reverses the conventional tank design by placing its engine at the front, protecting the crew. Its 120mm cannon, modular armor, and advanced active protection are specifically designed for asymmetrical battlefields where drones pose a daily threat.

4. Challenger 2 — Britain’s Heavy Hitter

Renowned for its strength and precision, Challenger 2 has a 120mm rifled gun and heavy armor. It’s been upgraded with improved sensors and anti-drone technology, but increased use of UAVs is compelling even this battle-hardened veteran to change.

3. Leopard 2 — Germany’s Balanced Champion

Usually referred to as the world’s greatest all-around tank, the Leopard 2 provides a combination of pace, firepower, and protection that few can equal. Its 120mm smoothbore, powerful engine, and reliable design have made it a NATO darling. Now, new electronic warfare systems and active defenses are keeping it in the running against drones.

2. T-14 Armata — Russia’s Next-Gen Gamble

With an unmanned turret, 125mm gun, and heavy armor, the T-14 Armata is a daring advance in tank technology. Its sensors and battlefield networking are designed to counter both conventional and drone dangers, but its absence of a tested combat record leaves some things to guesswork.

1. M1 Abrams — The American Benchmark

The M1 Abrams has been the gold standard for decades. Equipped with a 120mm smoothbore gun, composite armor, and a steady stream of upgrades, it is still a force to be reckoned with. Newer variants are receiving top-of-the-line active protection and advanced sensors to deal with drones, so the Abrams is not losing its crown yet.

The Drone Factor

The conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated how much of a disruption drones can cause, sometimes only costing hundreds of dollars but able to incapacitate million-dollar tanks. FPV drones, loitering munitions, and AI-controlled UAVs are turning the tables, compelling tank crews to reorganize or face annihilation at the hands of drones. Electronic warfare may be able to jam certain drones, but AI-controlled models can fly signal-free, rendering jamming futile. It’s an arms race where evolution means survival.

Lessons of the Past

Legends such as the Tiger I, T-34, and Sherman M4 continue to influence the design of tanks today. The sloping armor of the T-34 changed survivability forever, while the Tiger I established new levels of firepower. These lessons of balance, versatility, and protection remain the foundational principles for tanks today.

Rolling Into the Future

Tanks no longer battle only other tanks. Their foes now fly, swarm, and think. The greatest tanks in the world will be those that remain connected, remain armored, and remain mobile—whatever the battlefield becomes.

In case the chief of all aerial vehicles of the U.S. Navy was to be determined, the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior, or as the workers affectionately called it. The Whale would easily be the winner. It was a giant compared to most other aircraft on the deck. This Cold War behemoth was actually built for the first time in 1952 and went on to do almost all the work the Navy required, such as releasing nuclear weapons, taking secret photos, engaging in electronic wars, and—most ffamouslyoperating as a fuel carrier that allowed the fighters to continue flying and thus, saved the lives of numerous pilots.

Born of a Nuclear Mission

The post-World War II years were nervously tense, and the Navy required a means to drop nuclear warheads from the sea. The Douglas Aircraft Company, headed by genius Ed Heinemann, replied with the A-3—a huge, long-range jet that could take off from a carrier and deliver its payload far into the heartland. Putting something so big on a rolling, sea-tied runway was no simple trick. Engineers designed a tricycle landing gear to enhance handling on the deck, bestowed it with folding high-mounted wings for saving space in the hangar, and mounted two robust Pratt & Whitney J57 turbojets for long-range capability.

The cockpit was operational but nasty—pilot and bombardier/navigator sat side by side, with a third member facing astern to handle defense equipment. In a contentious decision, no ejection seats were fitted to conserve weight, a decision that generated the black crewroom joke that “A3D” stood for “All Three Dead” in a crash.

From Nuclear Strike to All-Purpose Giant

The Skywarrior began operations in 1956, taking the place of the AJ Savage as the Navy’s nuclear strike weapon. However, with the advent of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the nuclear bomber was soon out of a job. Rather than being retired prematurely, “The Whale” diversified. Its massive bomb bay, tough airframe, and endurance capabilities made it well-suited to new missions—electronic jamming, surveillance, and, most notably, air refueling.

Vietnam and the Tanker’s Lifeline

It was in Vietnam that the A-3 earned its legendary status. In the early days of the war, there were some Skywarriors that flew bombing missions, but it was the tanker versions—the KA-3B and EKA-3B—that provided the foundation for carrier operations. They refueled strike packages before crossing the beach, hovered at the edge of enemy airspace for emergencies, and even descended on floundering aircraft making their way home damaged or with dangerously low fuel levels.

War stories are replete with Skywarrior heroism. On July 18, 1967, for instance, Commander Tom Maxwell piloted his tanker deep into country—contrary to orders and under fire from enemy defenses—to refuel Lt. Commander Dick Schaffert’s low-flying F-8 Crusader, shepherding it back to safety. Aviation historian Joe Baugher estimated that Skywarrior tankers rescued up to 700 Navy and Marine planes during the war.

Built to Adapt

More than 282 Skywarriors were built in several versions. The main production model was the A-3B with better engines and avionics. The KA-3B performed the tanker role, while the EKA-3B did both refueling and jamming. The RA-3B was prepped for reconnaissance, and the EA-3B became a Cold War standard for electronic intelligence, flying around the globe and even flying missions in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The U.S. Air Force also looked to the design, converting it to the B-66 Destroyer for use in ground-based operations.

Big Jet, Big Risks

Flying something the size of the Skywarrior off a carrier deck was an ongoing challenge. It broke records for the heaviest catapult launch, but its size made it less tolerant of error. Almost 42% of all Skywarriors produced were destroyed in accidents or combat, and without ejector seats, crews had fewer chances to survive an emergency. In spite of the hazards, its crews developed a reputation for skill, discipline, and lifesaving resolve.

Adieu to “The Whale”

By the early 1990s, newer and more specialized planes had replaced the Skywarrior’s missions. The Navy retired the remaining A-3s in September 1991, but their memory continues. Surviving specimens are on display at museums around the country, reminders of a time when the biggest bird on the carrier deck wasn’t a strike fighter, but the plane that ensured the strike fighters made it home.

The Douglas A-3 Skywarrior’s history is more than a roll call of specs or combat missions. It’s one of adaptation, unheralded heroism, and a plane so versatile it served for decades in missions its original creators never dreamed of. In short, it was “The Whale,” but it got the Navy through some of its most challenging years at sea.

More related images you may be interested in:

It was a big step when Ukraine first received its F-16 fighter jets. A “game-changer” was the term used by officials to describe it. The Ukrainian authorities felt more positive about overcoming the air dominance of Russia. However, beneath the major headline, there is a tough reality – it is not a quick solution to incorporate Western fighters into an active war zone.

Technically, the F-16 is a major advancement. Comparing it to the Russian aircraft in Ukraine (MiG-29s and Su-27s), which are close to being aged out, this American jet has more advanced radar, a wider range of weapons, and longer flight. All these could be the reasons for the narrowing of the gap with the powerful Su-35s of Russia, which are equipped with the most advanced sensors and have long-range missiles.

Even so, getting the planes into the hands of Ukrainians is only step one. Taking them aloft is a different set of problems. Most Ukrainian pilots have flown their entire careers in cockpits free of fly-by-wire, Soviet-style stick-and-yoke aircraft, so they have a huge learning curve ahead of them. What typically would be months—or even years—of training is being crunched into weeks, and frequently in a foreign language.

The support community is also subject to the same challenges. A fighter squadron doesn’t exist in a vacuum—it requires knowledgeable maintainers, weapons experts, and logistical teams to maintain jets in flight-ready condition. All that takes time to develop. In the meantime, Western contractors will be hired, but that also introduces operational and political issues.

Numbers are another constraint. The first F-16 deliveries by Ukraine are modest—a small number of aircraft initially, and 24 total by the end of 2024. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has estimated that 128 are required to effectively counter Russian air dominance. Even considering pledged gifts from Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands, the total is well below that, and delivery timeframes are uncertain.

The jets are also subject to operational limitations. Western donors have put constraints on the types of strikes Ukraine can conduct, especially deep within Russian territory. Furthermore, the Russian network of dense air defenses—particularly the S-400 system—compels Ukrainian pilots to fly closer to the ground, lessening missile range and exposing them to radar and interception more.

The larger air campaign hasn’t changed much since early in the war, when both sides defaulted to a form of reciprocal air denial, neither able to dominate the skies. With their numbers limited, the F-16s will more likely act as defensive cover for high-priority targets than as weapons for decisive offensive penetration—at least in the short term.

Politics also dictates their use. Donor countries impose certain conditions for operations, and pilot training slots are scarce. U.S. programs within Arizona and European facilities can only accommodate small numbers at a time, which retards the rate of integration.

Despite all of this, the arrival of the F-16 represents genuine improvement. The aircraft will enhance air defenses, assist in intercepting missiles, defend cities, and enhance Ukraine’s capacity to fight by NATO standards. But they’re not a quick fix. Their actual influence will be seen over years, not weeks, as part of a concerted, long-term modernization of Ukraine’s armed forces.

More related images you may be interested in:

Within the domain of combat firearms, certain weapons gain public recognition while others operate unnoticed, yet their impact can be widely traced in virtually all that is subsequent. The AR-18, with its civilian equivalent, the AR-180, is among those few invisible but influential partners. Generally, this modest rifle was the main driver for the evolution of modern rifles to a large extent, and even up to now, its influence is acknowledged.

Once it sold the rights to the AR-15 and AR-10 to Colt, Armalite was stuck. The AR-15 was already far down the road to becoming the U.S. military standard-issue M16, and Armalite required something new to maintain traction.

That “something” was the AR-18, a select-fire rifle in 5.56mm, designed with ruggedness, low cost, and ease of production in mind—even for countries lacking access to sophisticated tooling. Its semi-auto counterpart, the AR-180, targeted the civilian marketplace.

What set the AR-18 apart wasn’t so much what it did, but how it did it. While the AR-15 relied on aluminum forgings and a direct impingement system, the AR-18 opted for stamped steel components and a short-stroke gas piston configuration. That choice wasn’t solely about price—it made the gun more durable against fouling and heat, particularly in extreme conditions. It was a purposeful move away from the heat-susceptible direct impingement system that critics tended to excoriate in the AR-15 design.

The production history of the AR-18 is nearly as fascinating as the rifle. Initially produced in Costa Mesa, California, the rifle’s production soon came overseas. Howa in Japan replaced it temporarily, but export controls put a stop to that in due time. Then, the majority of AR-18 and AR-180 manufacturing ended up in the UK, and Sterling Armaments spearheaded that. Both models had their idiosyncrasies: Sterling models, for instance, featured distinctive welds and hardware, and were painted black rather than anodized like their U.S. or Japanese counterparts.

All its intelligent design and firm performance aside, however, the AR-18 never quite gained traction in military use. Some limited numbers were taken on by a few forces, and they saw actual combat in situations such as Northern Ireland during the Troubles, even at the hands of the IRA. Its rugged, utilitarian design also made it one of the go-to options for certain law enforcement units—such as LAPD SWAT—particularly during high-profile sieges like the Symbionese Liberation Army standoff of the ’70s.

For the civilian shooter, the AR-180 had its drawbacks and advantages. It was well-behaved and reliable, but the folding stock wasn’t necessarily built to last, and the mags weren’t always available. Eventually, Armalite attempted to revive the design with the AR-180B, which added a polymer lower and compatibility with normal AR-15 mags. It made the gun easier to use, though some thought it sacrificed a little of the original’s rugged aesthetic. 

Where the AR-18 truly earns its place in history among firearms, however, is in what followed. Its internal mechanisms—such as the dual recoil spring system, stamped receiver design, and that always reliable short-stroke piston—have carried over into some of the most cutting-edge rifles used today. Rifles such as the SIG MCX owe much of their internal configuration and operation to what the AR-18 innovated. The philosophy of rifle design that underlies the AR-18—keep it rugged, easy to manufacture, and easy to fix—has been something of a template for the 21st-century combat rifle.

More recently, the AR-18 spirit has been reanimated in the BRN-180 upper receiver, a contemporary interpretation intended to be used on standard AR-15 lowers. It retains the heart of the original—short-stroke piston, double recoil springs—but includes contemporary touches such as M-LOK handguards, adjustable gas blocks, and caliber options other than 5.56. And because the recoil system is contained, it doesn’t require a buffer tube, which means folding stocks are now an option, making it more convenient than ever for shooters today. 

Though the original AR-180s are collector items today, their legacy is far from faded. The practical design of the rifle, focused on reliability and ahead-of-the-curve innovations, set the standard for hundreds of rifles to come.

To anyone who examines the history of military firearms or contemporary firearm evolution, the AR-18 is a case study of influence without renown. It didn’t receive large military contracts, but it gained the future by sharing the DNA that’s still being developed in rifles everywhere today.

Deep down in the ocean, a radical revolution of a completely different nature is underway, but it is pretty hard to notice. Navies are adopting unmanned platforms more and more, which, on one hand, keep their navies but, on the other hand, do so in such work that they are essentially redefining the whole naval power projection concept. The main driver of this transformation is the extra-large unmanned undersea vehicles or XLUUVs. They are no longer the tiny early drones and, thus, are the very large and very capable machines with endurance and multi-mission capabilities. US Navy Orca XLUUV is at the forefront of the race in a platform that combines the qualities of autonomy, persistence, and power into a submarine that can operate without a crew and perform tasks that were previously the only work of manned ships.

The Orca program was born out of a challenge: how to be in contested waterways without endangering sailors. Boeing and Lockheed Martin were tasked in 2017 with coming up with concepts that had the potential to make this a reality. Boeing’s engineering prowess on the underwater aspect ultimately gave its design the upper hand, and the program has since made progress with constant development. By the late part of 2023, its prototype, XLE0, had undergone its first tests, and the first operational model, XLE1, began sea trials after production at Marina Shipyard. What is special about the Orca is how large and how long it will last.

Close to 85 feet in length, it rivals some of the original World War II subs and can dive to around 11,000 feet. Its hybrid propulsion system—marine diesel engine and advanced batteries—gives it the ability to spend up to several months at sea on a single deployment, traveling over 6,000 nautical miles.

This means that it does not need to be refueled to be sent out, using an advanced navigation system that uses Doppler velocity logs, inertial navigation, depth tracking, and GPS during flight, which gives precision even when normal signals are lost. Other than its long life, the actual strength of Orca is its carrying capacity.

Its 34-foot bay module can carry up to 8 tons of gear, and doubles as a launching area for medium-sized UUVs, a swarm of small drones, or for specialized payloads. It is flexible to the extent that it can be configured to carry sensors, communications gear, or even weapons based on mission requirements.

As its open-architecture design allows, Orca can be quickly reconfigured to include mine countermeasures, anti-submarine surveillance, surveillance, or seabed operations. Sometimes, it might operate without the payload bay altogether, its form streamlined for duty. That flexibility makes Orca a round-dish breaker.

Employed—from the beach or mother ship—it might go out by itself, cross long oceans, linger for weeks, do its job, and come home without ever putting one sailor in jeopardy. That autonomy positions it to snoop behind the lines, to gather information undercover, or to make a delivery where regular submarines must be out of range.

As it was described by one Navy man, Orca is not only augmenting the fleet, it’s a part of the fleet, and it introduces a different type of capability to complement manned submarines and ships.

The arrival of Orca heralds more than a new weapon system—it heralds a change in naval strategy. By serving as a mothership to lower-profile drones, it introduces new dimensions of flexibility and surprise to underwater warfare. The enemies will be unable to simply guess not just where a submarine is, but what it can do or does.

That is a complete departure from the older one big crewed subs design. The other countries are also in the process of constructing their XLUUVs, but America is ahead with Orca currently. Australia is developing Ghost Shark, Canada launched the Solus-XR, and the United Kingdom is developing its Herne project. They have differing power or propulsion systems, but none of them have yet reached the level of operational capability that Orca has started to exhibit.

Forward, Orca is not a submarine but an opening to the future. Its transition to service will shape the Navy’s future unmanned vehicles and establish the standard for machine and human sailor coexistence at sea.

It’s a new frontier where stealth and tenacity converge with autonomy to pursue missions too dangerous, too mundane, or too risky for human sailors. Its appearance is evidence that naval innovation is moving forward consistently, and whoever can explore the depths with unmanned technology will be a winner to some degree in the coming wars. 

The Martin B-26 Marauder is definitely one of the most incredible stories of the aviation world, which, against all odds, managed to be counted as a success. At the time of its first introduction, it was surrounded by such awful signs that the crews were afraid to fly it. However, as time went by, it was the very same aircraft that won over the pilots and became one of the most durable and efficient medium bombers used during the Second World War. The transition from a nightmare to a legend highlights the combination of engineering innovation, resolve, and the fighting spirit of the aircrews that were able to turn a flawed airplane into one of the most dependable vehicles of the war.

The history began in 1939, when the U.S. Army Air Corps issued a call for a twin-engine bomber that would be able to carry heavy loads of bombs at high speeds. Peyton M. Magruder, head designer at the Glenn L. Martin Company, replied with a sleek and refined design that gave the highest importance to aerodynamics and economy. So infatuated was the Army that it contracted for over 200 planes before the prototype flew—an unconventional act of faith, but one compelled by the war’s impending time constraints. 

That faith cost dearly. The B-26’s short, high-speed wings and its two huge Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engines made it an uncooperative airplane with heavy wing loading. Its landing and takeoff speeds frequently exceeded 130 mph, much faster than most pilots ever flew. Training accidents doubled at a frightening rate, and the Marauder acquired dismal nicknames such as “Widowmaker” and “Flying Coffin.” At Tampa’s MacDill Field, there was grim levity throughout the ranks, cadets cracking wise about “one a day in Tampa Bay.”

Early models also had mechanical issues. Faulty landing gear, intricate hydraulic systems, and prop failure also led to other accidents, too frequently the result of inexperience and corner-cutting maintenance. To try to restore the bomber’s good name, the Army hired veteran pilots such as Colonel Jimmy Doolittle and even Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) to prove that, in capable hands, the Marauder could be flown safely and efficiently.

Although rocky at the start, the B-26 was ahead of its time. It sported a streamlined fuselage, a tricycle landing gear, a novelty among bombers at the time, and needed a crew of six or seven men. Each of its two engines produced about 2,000 horsepower. Its initial wingspan of 65 feet was eventually expanded to 71 feet to help in maneuvering. It may have carried 4,000 pounds of bombs internally, but subsequent models were equipped with up to thirteen .50-caliber machine guns. It was also the first American bomber to have a powered tail turret, which gave it extremely defensive capabilities. It was also plated and otherwise fitted with defensive equipment that made it extremely resilient.

Slowly, improvements began to restrain the monster. Automatic leading-edge slats enhanced low-speed control, and self-sealing fuel bladders enhanced combat survivability. Nose-gear hardeners, more trustworthy hydraulics, and weight reductions lightened pilot loads. Extended wings and a bigger tail stabilized handling at lower speeds. Coupled with improved training schemes and tighter maintenance discipline, these advances drove accident rates to plummet. The murderer trainer was becoming a warplane worthy of respect.

Marauder entered service in 1942, initially in the Pacific, attacking Japanese bases and shipping out of Australia and New Guinea. With its agility and ruggedness, it was able to make swift, precise attacks and escape unscathed, and so regularly did. Indeed, its first operational mission had been to sink a Japanese submarine—a kind of poetic beginning to its service in combat.

It was in Europe and the Mediterranean, however, that the B-26 excelled. With the U.S. Ninth Air Force, it hit supply routes, rail centers, and enemy positions with pinpoint accuracy. In the North African campaign, it was a godsend against Axis forces. Marauders pounded bridges and transportation centers relentlessly in the run-up to D-Day, hampering German reinforcements leading up to the invasion. They remained with the force throughout the Battle of the Bulge and through to the final 1945 offensives, frequently taking off and flying home under intense fire, but battered and intact.

By war’s end, the Marauder had the lowest Allied bomber loss ratio, a far cry from its initial reputation. Crews were taught to fly in close formation together for defense and made every ounce of use of the firepower from their heavy defensive guns. The plane’s speed rendered enemy fighters unable to pursue, and its sturdy build had even badly shot-up aircraft return home when others would have had to be brought down. To the average crew, the “Widowmaker” was a lifesaver.

The Marauder’s deployment wasn’t reserved for American troops alone. The Royal Air Force, Free French, and South African Air Force all employed the bomber, utilizing it for anything from coastal patrol to tactical strike. Its versatility and dependability made it a gem in more than one war theater. Production ceased before over 5,200 had flowed off Martin’s production lines. Others were abandoned post-war, but a few survived civilian life as cargo planes, water bombers, or museum pieces—each a testament to the Marauder’s unlikely survival. In the post-war years, the Martin Company was redirected into other aerospace pursuits and eventually became Martin Marietta.

But the B-26 Marauder tale is nonetheless one of resilience and redemption. What started as a dreaded and despised design evolved into one of history’s greatest bombers. Its legacy is a testament to the determination, creativity, and bravery of the individuals who operated it. From “Widowmaker” to war hero, the Marauder proved that even a problematic start could evolve into greatness.