This is assuming there wouldn't be a swarm of drones deployed alongside the tanks. Tanks could be used analogously to aircraft carriers, which would be sitting ducks vs jets/subs/battleships, if it weren't for their own jets they're carrying, or the battleships sailing with them.

Aircraft carriers don't have the large cannons of a dreadnought. An armored car that served as launchpad and command center for drones could be drastically lighter, faster, cheaper, and with simpler logistics.

The main gun on a tank is actually a pretty cost effective weapon. Projectile weapons are a lot cheaper than missiles.

Yes this would probably work but that doesn’t seem to be what any major army in the world is doing right now.

An anti tank missile is a "drone" (and has been touted as the end of the tank for the past 50 years or more). Has the much slower-moving propeller driven contraption changed anything significant here?

Way more expendable, can overwhelm with sheer numbers and can be much more reactive than something that has to be aimed and fired from far away.

I mean has it changed the calculus on the battlefield for tanks?

Ukraine are pleading for, and using, mostly anti tank missiles to destroy Russia's tanks, aren't they? Why if swarms of expendable drones are better and cheaper?

I think it did pretty decisively in the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

In what way that missiles could not have?

They were extremely cheap, way more maneuverable and can be controlled right up to the moment of impact. A swarm of missiles can’t just hang around for something to happen.

And what did that change for tanks on the battlefield?

One or two hits _in the same spot_.

The bigger threat is dual charged ammunition like the javelins