The effectiveness of drones, they are making an impact but by their nature every attack is recorded so they are over represented in war footage.
Also the footage each side chooses to publish online creates bias because misses and drones being shot down are rarely shown.
Probably all the people who think drones are the only thing that matters in modern warfare due to only successful hits being published.
Drones absolutely matter. But they aren't going to be replacing the rest of the military. >1915 >Biplanes replace 100% of the fighting on the ground, with massive plane pushes of millions of planes engaging in swarm battles over the now abandoned due to dive bombing hordes of biplane trenches
Obviously this didn't happen. But obviously airplanes made a huge change to warfare too. Autismos seem to have difficulty grasping this concept so I'll say it again- >Saying something new isn't the only thing that matters in war is not the same as saying that it doesn't matter at all
You’re forgetting the fact that it’s very easy to shoot down and jam cheap drones you moron. Drones aren’t an ez win button that will let you win because you spam 100 million cheap ass suicide drones. You frickers are so stupid it’s moronic.
>You’re forgetting the fact that it’s very easy to shoot down and jam cheap drones you moron.
You’re forgetting the fact that this isn't true you moron. >Drones aren’t an ez win button that will let you win because you spam 100 million cheap ass suicide drones.
It literally is you moron.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>drones are just superior because they are okay!
Lmao. You’re so fricking stupid it hurts. Brother, it cost literally nothing to shoot down cheap suicide drones with ancient weapons like a Ma Deuce strapped to a pickup truck, which is literally one of the main ways Ukraine shoots down Shasneed drones (which still cost Russia like 400k a piece, lmao). And cheap FPVs are horribly unreliable and easily countered, only 10% even reach their targets successfully (and this number isn’t just kills, it’s including FPVs that strike near their target and are presumed to have at least “damaged” it) according to Ukrainian reports, and the numbers are assumed to be even lower for the Russians. Drones aren’t fricking magic and can be shot/jammed out the sky easily. You fricking drone supremacy morons need to understand that humans have gotten pretty good at shooting things out of the sky and by increasing the density of the targets (like a swarm) you’re only making it easier to shoot them down with legacy weapons and if you try to increase their resiliency you are going to balloon the cost to where they’re about as cost prohibitive as a precision munition and defeats the whole purpose.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>verily I shall take down those newfangled aeroplanes with my trusty maxim gun
-Cornelius Cumberbottom, 1912
You're not going to shoot down a drone with an MG with any consistency, especially if there is more than 1.
10% efficiency is extremely good for any weapon being used on a point target.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
> You're not going to shoot down a drone with an MG with any consistency
I can make the same argument about drones hitting their target moron. Most drones never reach their target, let alone damage it. But to be fair, my argument is completely true while yours is a compete fabrication. Ukraine has estimated they shoot down approximately 40% of shasneeds with small teams that use technicals equipped with .50 cals in the bed of the truck, rest are downed by other means (such as gepards, jamming, vampires), Meanwhile +90% of Russian FPVs are either jammed or shot down (same basically goes for the Ukrainians). > 10% efficiency is extremely good for any weapon being used on a point target.
lmao, not only is that a moronic statement, the numbers are fundamentally flawed, which with you're subzero IQ I’m not surprised you didn’t pick up on that in my initial post. That 10% includes near misses and hits that did not decisively harm but are still recorded as “hits.” It’s also misleading because a large amount of hits are on abandoned/damaged/destroyed vehicles in no man’s land, which just serve to inflate the numbers. It should also be noted that interviews with multiple Ukrainian commanders about drones always end with them saying that they would not be using drones as much as they are if they actually had the artillery shells that they need. Why are you so acoustically focused on drones being the end all to be all? They’re literally just another weapon in the armory of mankind that has an effective counter, but can still be lethal if used in conjunction with other things, like infantry teams. It should also be noted that Ukrainian FPV teams have an extremely large logistics tail, and aren’t as quick and nimble as public perception would have you think, hence why Ukraine would much rather have artillery since it’s more effective and a better use of the manpower.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes, and most artillery shells miss their targets, most SAMs miss, most air strikes miss, etc.
Most drones failing is not a unique bug.
The difference, is that drones are cheaper than all the rest of those. It takes very little money to build a drone that is very effective. And they can be deployed rapidly and react to events rapidly, rather than needing several steps of communication to effectively use like artillery or mortar fire or air power.
They're not wunderwaffen, but they're also uniquely effective at several extremely important tasks while also minimizing price.
Like said above, drones are cheaper than infantry, even for shitholes like Ukraine and Russia.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
> The difference, is that drones are cheaper than all the rest of those. It takes very little money to build a drone that is very effective
Lmao, homosexual you are talking straight out of your ass. The idea of an “effective” drone whose price and performance makes its preferable to older methods if they are available doesn’t exist. Cheap drones are cheap because they are shitty, and they give an equivalent performance. And when you start increasing the cost and complexity of drones to erase that shittiness you quickly run into an issue where you ultimately build an expensive but still shit approximation of what you actually want. Case in point would be the TB-2, shit had its heyday for like a month when Russians didn’t understand their own AA but shortly after they figured that out those things went down like flys and despite their cheap cost relative to manned aircraft, the Ukrainians stopped procuring them because they were expensive compared to their lack luster performance. Another case would be FPVs themselves, despite this board thinking they are the future of warfare, it’s actually a desperate ploy by both the Russians and Ukrainians to try to make up for a known lack of artillery and missiles on both sides, and if both could acquire the amount of legacy munitions that they needed they would quickly drop the ineffective FPVs because its cost (monetary and man hours) to performance ratio is suboptimal. Same goes for shasneed, Russia doesn’t use that because they are effective and preferable over legacy systems, it’s because they literally lack the means to build what they actually want in sufficient numbers. As well the Shasneed is a good case study of how cheap drones quickly become uncheap because they undergo so many modifications to become more survivable due to their inherent vulnerability. Drones as strike weapons are not uniquely effective at anything, they’re just a stop gap measure with huge flaws but a cheap price (ideally).
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Stop posting, you are a moron, nobody is reading your shizo babble.
Drones are the future, cope with it moron.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You have no argument drone homosexual.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Brother, it cost literally nothing to shoot down cheap suicide drones with ancient weapons like a Ma Deuce strapped to a pickup truck
You are a moron.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Lmao. Suck my dick drone homosexual. The truth hurts.
The effectiveness of drones, they are making an impact but by their nature every attack is recorded so they are over represented in war footage.
Also the footage each side chooses to publish online creates bias because misses and drones being shot down are rarely shown.
I'd argue that artillery accuracy for Ukraine is exaggerated too for the same reason. It's easy to make it seem like you are a 155mm sniper when you only show the hits. That being said, the worst ukie artyman is better than the average russian.
IFVs are a good example of this since MBTs are always going to be a priority target, they appear more survivable because less people are actively gunning for them
Probably all the people who think drones are the only thing that matters in modern warfare due to only successful hits being published.
>Also the footage each side chooses to publish online creates bias because misses and drones being shot down are rarely shown.
This, we have a thread of footage of a soldier shooting down or dodging 3 separate drones before finally getting hit.
[...]
More than they really wanted that guy dead, it makes you ask how much footage of drones being shot down or missing have been left on the cutting room floor for both sides.
https://i.imgur.com/MJRf8KQ.jpeg
Any examples of survivorship bias in the Ukraine war?
Also, Vatinks aka /misc/ are seething that the Democrats finally broke the Republican's blockade on aid to Ukraine. So expect to see a spike in hand wringing posts like
Welcome to /k/, PrepHole's weapons board. Our board centers around weapons, armor, and other myriad military technology.
Probably all the people who think drones are the only thing that matters in modern warfare due to only successful hits being published.
Good takes. Everyone see's the successful kills but analysts keep telling us the attrition rate on drones is very high. For every one that takes out a tank there are hundreds that achieve nothing. That's still a good return on costs but drones have a PK closer to bullets than guided missiles.
I wouldn't say it's survivorship bias in the context of strategy like the bomber example in the OP. It skews civilian perception, sure, but the Ukrainian brass has the big picture, and they're still dumping cash into drone production, even knowing the attrition rate.
> but the Ukrainian brass has the big picture, and they're still dumping cash into drone production
A lot of drone units are self funded either through donations directly to the units or by a commander who has money, especially the good ones who post the viral videos. But at the end of the day the Ukies are pursuing FPV drones because they lack the capability to acquire/construct artillery shells and missiles and need to fill the gap with literally anything and FPVs can be assembled in someone’s living room using a cheap kit and some cells out of an EV battery.
I wonder what the numbers for advances supported by tanks vs without look like.
It's easy to see hundreds of burned out tank hulls on the battlefield and conclude "tanks are obsolete."
But what if, hypothetically, a dozen tanks make the difference between losing only a third of the assaulting force rather than half or more?
The entire ukraine situation isnt nearly as applicable to the rest of the world as everyone thinks, its a freak situation where both sides have insane manpower and resources but neither are able to achieve air support or proper electronic warfare, two of the most important aspects of warfare for the last
>Russia has air superiority though
Show Russian planes over Kiev. Hells, show Russian planes flying anywhere else except deeply in russian controlled territory. >Why do you think ukrainians get bombed so much more than russians?
Missiles are not air superiority. If they were then the air superiority would be decided by fricking artillery.
>contested
Wouldn't even call it that, I'd call it denied to both sides with few exceptions. You aren't getting above 1000 ft anywhere near the front without getting an S-300 interceptor shoved up your ass.
It's shown that control of the air remains critical, even when low-skill manpower is plentiful. In a conflict where there's less infantry overall but a similar amount of other resources, drones and air superiority are going to be even more important.
It is applicable to the rest of the world except the US, actually. Outside of asymmetrical bullying of guerillas, I doubt any country is going to be able to reliably achieve total air superiority. So pretty much any blowup is liable to look more like ukraine unless it involves America
The example with holes in a plane is horribly wrong. It assumes uniform distribution of hits over the plane surface, but that's not necessary true, and even most likely was not true. Enemy pilots might be trained to approach from certain angles and target certain parts, so the parts with most bullet holes might actually be the areas to reinforce because they receive more hits than the parts with less holes.
Even having less losses than before does not prove anything as it might be the case that the losses would've been decreased even more if they had reinforced different parts.
Without experiment with a control group it was just a conclusion from a thin air.
While your attempt at critical thinking is good here, your lack of prerequisite knowledge makes you sound dumb. A2A marksmanship wasn't as good or consistent as the point you're trying to make requires. Further, the clusters of bullet holes on the planes that made it back show the German pilots were trying but couldn't always hit some areas more than others. Also, flak is an area munition, not a precision munition. Yet, the flak damage to planes that returned occured outside of the same areas found mostly untouched on the returning fighter-attacked planes. The empirical evidence collected during the war and afterwards examining aircraft that had been shot down - as well as the realities of a2a combat of which you're apparently and stunningly unaware - shows that your hypothesis is kinda super moronic.
Super Light transportation veichles (like jeeps and atv or motorbike) seems to survive disproportionately more than heavily armored vehicles but that is likely because drone operators are obsessively targeting higher value targets first and foremost while smaller, faster moving targets are just a less easy target with less value.
Individual infantrymen are also targeted but because they are easy target to hit as they don't move much.
Motorcycles are the most annoying targets as they are easy to miss and low priority value.
Which causes them to be targeted less.
However if much larger scale use of motorcycles was used we would see more drone deployed with frag than with shaped charges and operators would learn to detonate the drone above the target rather than on impact as the absolute lack of armor makes for easy kill
Welcome to /k/, PrepHole's weapons board. Our board centers around weapons, armor, and other myriad military technology.
>Welcome to /k/, PrepHole's weapons board. Our board centers around weapons, armor, and other myriad military technology.
no it doesnt
>hes still trying to push the "drones dont ackshullly matter" meme
gay
>saying drones aren't the only thing that matters means you're saying drones don't matter whatsoever
moron
moron
non reddit takes
this is why people automatically shit on your thread. you are never slick about it.
>intelligent posts are not allowed on /k/
that is indeed what you seem to think judging by the posts you're making
Drones absolutely matter. But they aren't going to be replacing the rest of the military.
>1915
>Biplanes replace 100% of the fighting on the ground, with massive plane pushes of millions of planes engaging in swarm battles over the now abandoned due to dive bombing hordes of biplane trenches
Obviously this didn't happen. But obviously airplanes made a huge change to warfare too. Autismos seem to have difficulty grasping this concept so I'll say it again-
>Saying something new isn't the only thing that matters in war is not the same as saying that it doesn't matter at all
The difference there were planes were very expensive, but drones are cheaper than infantry.
You’re forgetting the fact that it’s very easy to shoot down and jam cheap drones you moron. Drones aren’t an ez win button that will let you win because you spam 100 million cheap ass suicide drones. You frickers are so stupid it’s moronic.
>You’re forgetting the fact that it’s very easy to shoot down and jam cheap drones you moron.
You’re forgetting the fact that this isn't true you moron.
>Drones aren’t an ez win button that will let you win because you spam 100 million cheap ass suicide drones.
It literally is you moron.
>drones are just superior because they are okay!
Lmao. You’re so fricking stupid it hurts. Brother, it cost literally nothing to shoot down cheap suicide drones with ancient weapons like a Ma Deuce strapped to a pickup truck, which is literally one of the main ways Ukraine shoots down Shasneed drones (which still cost Russia like 400k a piece, lmao). And cheap FPVs are horribly unreliable and easily countered, only 10% even reach their targets successfully (and this number isn’t just kills, it’s including FPVs that strike near their target and are presumed to have at least “damaged” it) according to Ukrainian reports, and the numbers are assumed to be even lower for the Russians. Drones aren’t fricking magic and can be shot/jammed out the sky easily. You fricking drone supremacy morons need to understand that humans have gotten pretty good at shooting things out of the sky and by increasing the density of the targets (like a swarm) you’re only making it easier to shoot them down with legacy weapons and if you try to increase their resiliency you are going to balloon the cost to where they’re about as cost prohibitive as a precision munition and defeats the whole purpose.
>verily I shall take down those newfangled aeroplanes with my trusty maxim gun
-Cornelius Cumberbottom, 1912
You're not going to shoot down a drone with an MG with any consistency, especially if there is more than 1.
10% efficiency is extremely good for any weapon being used on a point target.
> You're not going to shoot down a drone with an MG with any consistency
I can make the same argument about drones hitting their target moron. Most drones never reach their target, let alone damage it. But to be fair, my argument is completely true while yours is a compete fabrication. Ukraine has estimated they shoot down approximately 40% of shasneeds with small teams that use technicals equipped with .50 cals in the bed of the truck, rest are downed by other means (such as gepards, jamming, vampires), Meanwhile +90% of Russian FPVs are either jammed or shot down (same basically goes for the Ukrainians).
> 10% efficiency is extremely good for any weapon being used on a point target.
lmao, not only is that a moronic statement, the numbers are fundamentally flawed, which with you're subzero IQ I’m not surprised you didn’t pick up on that in my initial post. That 10% includes near misses and hits that did not decisively harm but are still recorded as “hits.” It’s also misleading because a large amount of hits are on abandoned/damaged/destroyed vehicles in no man’s land, which just serve to inflate the numbers. It should also be noted that interviews with multiple Ukrainian commanders about drones always end with them saying that they would not be using drones as much as they are if they actually had the artillery shells that they need. Why are you so acoustically focused on drones being the end all to be all? They’re literally just another weapon in the armory of mankind that has an effective counter, but can still be lethal if used in conjunction with other things, like infantry teams. It should also be noted that Ukrainian FPV teams have an extremely large logistics tail, and aren’t as quick and nimble as public perception would have you think, hence why Ukraine would much rather have artillery since it’s more effective and a better use of the manpower.
Yes, and most artillery shells miss their targets, most SAMs miss, most air strikes miss, etc.
Most drones failing is not a unique bug.
The difference, is that drones are cheaper than all the rest of those. It takes very little money to build a drone that is very effective. And they can be deployed rapidly and react to events rapidly, rather than needing several steps of communication to effectively use like artillery or mortar fire or air power.
They're not wunderwaffen, but they're also uniquely effective at several extremely important tasks while also minimizing price.
Like said above, drones are cheaper than infantry, even for shitholes like Ukraine and Russia.
> The difference, is that drones are cheaper than all the rest of those. It takes very little money to build a drone that is very effective
Lmao, homosexual you are talking straight out of your ass. The idea of an “effective” drone whose price and performance makes its preferable to older methods if they are available doesn’t exist. Cheap drones are cheap because they are shitty, and they give an equivalent performance. And when you start increasing the cost and complexity of drones to erase that shittiness you quickly run into an issue where you ultimately build an expensive but still shit approximation of what you actually want. Case in point would be the TB-2, shit had its heyday for like a month when Russians didn’t understand their own AA but shortly after they figured that out those things went down like flys and despite their cheap cost relative to manned aircraft, the Ukrainians stopped procuring them because they were expensive compared to their lack luster performance. Another case would be FPVs themselves, despite this board thinking they are the future of warfare, it’s actually a desperate ploy by both the Russians and Ukrainians to try to make up for a known lack of artillery and missiles on both sides, and if both could acquire the amount of legacy munitions that they needed they would quickly drop the ineffective FPVs because its cost (monetary and man hours) to performance ratio is suboptimal. Same goes for shasneed, Russia doesn’t use that because they are effective and preferable over legacy systems, it’s because they literally lack the means to build what they actually want in sufficient numbers. As well the Shasneed is a good case study of how cheap drones quickly become uncheap because they undergo so many modifications to become more survivable due to their inherent vulnerability. Drones as strike weapons are not uniquely effective at anything, they’re just a stop gap measure with huge flaws but a cheap price (ideally).
Stop posting, you are a moron, nobody is reading your shizo babble.
Drones are the future, cope with it moron.
You have no argument drone homosexual.
>Brother, it cost literally nothing to shoot down cheap suicide drones with ancient weapons like a Ma Deuce strapped to a pickup truck
You are a moron.
Lmao. Suck my dick drone homosexual. The truth hurts.
>discussion of the effects of military material in combat has nothing to do with weapons
The effectiveness of drones, they are making an impact but by their nature every attack is recorded so they are over represented in war footage.
Also the footage each side chooses to publish online creates bias because misses and drones being shot down are rarely shown.
I'd argue that artillery accuracy for Ukraine is exaggerated too for the same reason. It's easy to make it seem like you are a 155mm sniper when you only show the hits. That being said, the worst ukie artyman is better than the average russian.
IFVs are a good example of this since MBTs are always going to be a priority target, they appear more survivable because less people are actively gunning for them
These
>they appear more survivable because less people are actively gunning for them
You mean because they are supposed to stay out of direct fire. No shit.
>Also the footage each side chooses to publish online creates bias because misses and drones being shot down are rarely shown.
This, we have a thread of footage of a soldier shooting down or dodging 3 separate drones before finally getting hit.
More than they really wanted that guy dead, it makes you ask how much footage of drones being shot down or missing have been left on the cutting room floor for both sides.
Also, Vatinks aka /misc/ are seething that the Democrats finally broke the Republican's blockade on aid to Ukraine. So expect to see a spike in hand wringing posts like
in the near future.
Good takes. Everyone see's the successful kills but analysts keep telling us the attrition rate on drones is very high. For every one that takes out a tank there are hundreds that achieve nothing. That's still a good return on costs but drones have a PK closer to bullets than guided missiles.
I wouldn't say it's survivorship bias in the context of strategy like the bomber example in the OP. It skews civilian perception, sure, but the Ukrainian brass has the big picture, and they're still dumping cash into drone production, even knowing the attrition rate.
> but the Ukrainian brass has the big picture, and they're still dumping cash into drone production
A lot of drone units are self funded either through donations directly to the units or by a commander who has money, especially the good ones who post the viral videos. But at the end of the day the Ukies are pursuing FPV drones because they lack the capability to acquire/construct artillery shells and missiles and need to fill the gap with literally anything and FPVs can be assembled in someone’s living room using a cheap kit and some cells out of an EV battery.
Probably all the people who think drones are the only thing that matters in modern warfare due to only successful hits being published.
I wonder what the numbers for advances supported by tanks vs without look like.
It's easy to see hundreds of burned out tank hulls on the battlefield and conclude "tanks are obsolete."
But what if, hypothetically, a dozen tanks make the difference between losing only a third of the assaulting force rather than half or more?
The entire ukraine situation isnt nearly as applicable to the rest of the world as everyone thinks, its a freak situation where both sides have insane manpower and resources but neither are able to achieve air support or proper electronic warfare, two of the most important aspects of warfare for the last
Russia has air superiority though
Why do you think ukrainians get bombed so much more than russians?
>Russia has air superiority though
Show Russian planes over Kiev. Hells, show Russian planes flying anywhere else except deeply in russian controlled territory.
>Why do you think ukrainians get bombed so much more than russians?
Missiles are not air superiority. If they were then the air superiority would be decided by fricking artillery.
They have air superiority 300 miles from the frontline (kind of they still loose the odd A50).
The airspace above the frontline is contested.
>contested
Wouldn't even call it that, I'd call it denied to both sides with few exceptions. You aren't getting above 1000 ft anywhere near the front without getting an S-300 interceptor shoved up your ass.
Russia has a larger Air Force to begin with and are lobbing shit from well within their borders, that’s not air superiority
if russia had air superiority there would be WAY more footage lol. what happened to all the KA-52 or hind footage?
It's shown that control of the air remains critical, even when low-skill manpower is plentiful. In a conflict where there's less infantry overall but a similar amount of other resources, drones and air superiority are going to be even more important.
ctually in this war there are very limited manpower resources for such a long front line.
It is applicable to the rest of the world except the US, actually. Outside of asymmetrical bullying of guerillas, I doubt any country is going to be able to reliably achieve total air superiority. So pretty much any blowup is liable to look more like ukraine unless it involves America
The example with holes in a plane is horribly wrong. It assumes uniform distribution of hits over the plane surface, but that's not necessary true, and even most likely was not true. Enemy pilots might be trained to approach from certain angles and target certain parts, so the parts with most bullet holes might actually be the areas to reinforce because they receive more hits than the parts with less holes.
Even having less losses than before does not prove anything as it might be the case that the losses would've been decreased even more if they had reinforced different parts.
Without experiment with a control group it was just a conclusion from a thin air.
are you *actually* moronic?
You might be actually moronic.
Did you just blow in from moron town?
While your attempt at critical thinking is good here, your lack of prerequisite knowledge makes you sound dumb. A2A marksmanship wasn't as good or consistent as the point you're trying to make requires. Further, the clusters of bullet holes on the planes that made it back show the German pilots were trying but couldn't always hit some areas more than others. Also, flak is an area munition, not a precision munition. Yet, the flak damage to planes that returned occured outside of the same areas found mostly untouched on the returning fighter-attacked planes. The empirical evidence collected during the war and afterwards examining aircraft that had been shot down - as well as the realities of a2a combat of which you're apparently and stunningly unaware - shows that your hypothesis is kinda super moronic.
Yes, I'm sure it's a tactical decision to shoot everything but the thinnest part of the tail, the engines, and the wienerpit.
Super Light transportation veichles (like jeeps and atv or motorbike) seems to survive disproportionately more than heavily armored vehicles but that is likely because drone operators are obsessively targeting higher value targets first and foremost while smaller, faster moving targets are just a less easy target with less value.
Individual infantrymen are also targeted but because they are easy target to hit as they don't move much.
Motorcycles are the most annoying targets as they are easy to miss and low priority value.
Which causes them to be targeted less.
However if much larger scale use of motorcycles was used we would see more drone deployed with frag than with shaped charges and operators would learn to detonate the drone above the target rather than on impact as the absolute lack of armor makes for easy kill