Drones complement an Abrams in one sense, but the expensive few vs the many cheap mantra needs to be reevaluated across the combined arms philosophy.

You do not understand what a Main Battle Tank is at a fundamental level, and again are falling into the thinking trap that war is like Advance Wars and a Tank is a specific unit you buy with an associated cost to be abstractly compared against performance and a discrete rock paper scissors relationship to the other singular units on the map.

Everybodies' plan is to flank, surround and overwhelm the expensive, powerful few of the enemy through cleverness, extensive planning, coordination, valuing of human lives on both sides and through the leveraging of mass waves of cheap tools that have uses outside of war unlike Main Battle Tanks which are unbelievably expensive and an absolute pain in the ass while being useless during peacetime.

So yeah lets do that... or rather Ukraine has already done that at certain sections of the front up to a point of saturation and diminishing returns and now it has become clear to the Ukrainian forces that the russians must be struck at a specific weak point and smashed with absolute force there in order to cascade a set of larger failures that result in large scale collapse and surrender of russian forces.

There are two options for motivating who is ever given the job to be the spearhead of that attack, either you do the fascist/German/russian/dictator/whatever strategy of demanding that nothing else will work but human bodies as armor while distracting your troops with a worship of war machines... this endless obsession with light armor or no armor with fascists is so boring and stupid...

When Marines in Iraq urgently asked for armored vehicles particularly resistant to improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in 2005, what they got from the Marine Corps instead was delays, according to a full, unredacted copy of a Department of Defense Inspector General report PaperTrail has obtained.

The December 8 report, marked Official Use Only, found that providing armored Humvees took precedence and that the Marine Corps “stopped processing” the request for more than 1,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs). MRAPs are particularly resistant to IEDs because of their V-shaped hulls that disperse explosions.

Along with the delays in providing MRAPs, the IG found an equally troubling breakdown by Pentagon brass – the failure to anticipate the use of IEDs by Iraqi insurgents. “DOD was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices in low-intensity conflicts and of the availability of mine-resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003,” the report states. “The department entered into operations in Iraq without having taken available steps to acquire technology to mitigate the known mine and IED risk to soldiers and Marines.”

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/leaked-report-details-failure-to-get-armored-vehicles-to-marines-in-iraq/

or you field trained battalions of Abrams-like and Bradley-like mechanized armor (that know they are genuinely supported) that can hit those points of decisiveness like a force of nature and do it in a way that has the best chance of keeping the people doing it who are asked to carry out the will of an abstract entity such as a country alive and able to go home.

You are mistaking the drill bit for the entire drill rig. You keep drill bits around for when you need to drill through solid rock, not as general use tools like shovels or buckets.

edit if your response is "third option just do it all with drones!" realize from the perspective of combined arms warfare you are obsessing over a trivial distinction about where the shaft becomes the spear point when what actually matters is the human intention close behind the thrust.