Sadly I think that it's the first and the last major conflict with the wide usage of drones as I'm sure the armies will develop dedicated counters to them
It's entirely possible that counters for drones are made which takes them off the battlefield or morphs them into something different. Tanks and fighter aircraft stayed, but horses and uboats didn't.
And it's entirely possible those "counters" only counter them under certain conditions and situations, just like all other counters. Horses didn't disappear from the battlefield by being countered, I don't even know why you brought this up. And submarines are still being used, I don't know why you brought this one either.
Horses became obsolete in war because they weren't always good under fire, tended to die when shot, and vehicles eventually surpassed them. Uboats are called uboats and not submarines for a reason. Submarines are not the same as Uboats. Submarines are designed to travel underwater; uboats are designed to travel on the surface. The employment of submersible ships changed into something different.
>Uboats are called uboats and not submarines for a reason. Submarines are not the same as Uboats. Submarines are designed to travel underwater; uboats are designed to travel on the surface. The employment of submersible ships changed into something different.
U-boat is just the German word for Submarine. They've called them U-boats from the beginning and still do. The only reason we even know that is because it got popular in the wars to call enemy subs by their German name to differentiate them.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah, anglo-americans love to call german or japanese stuff by their native names to sell better stories instead of using plain english.
>Horses didn't disappear from the battlefield by being countered
Horses, no. But cavalry, as in troops that fight from horseback as opposed to mounted infantry who ride to battle and then dismount to fight were comprehensively hard countered by machine guns in 1914.
Both sides still had lancers up till that point and expected to perform cavalry charges.
I've played some ARMA 3 with the drone that has an LMG underneath. It's pretty effective, since it has a camera with high zoom and a piper that adjusts for range. I can be very accurate with it. People on the ground have a hard time shooting back. They have to guess the range and know how shooting upwards changes their ballistic trajectory. Very easy to kill 30 soldiers with it before needing to resupply.
because hitting something like human with something like a bullet from above is not easy - certainly on par with hitting the drone from the ground - they are using HE because its effective in large radius
Vertical, recoilless gravity VOG17 drops are easier than angled gunfire, simple as. They're lighter, simpler, and more deadly too. One quadcopter can carry 2 RKGs or 4+ VOGs for the weight of 1 empty gun.
Is sniping from an elevated position advantageous, yes or no?
1 month ago
Anonymous
No. Rooftop sniping is an amateurish mistake and bad habit perpetuated by fighting arabs in mud huts. Traditionally successful snipers, like machinegunners, operate from deeply buried narrow FOV locations enfilading the enemy.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Then why did they put machine guns on aircraft?
1 month ago
Anonymous
For non-sniping purposes, dear retard.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I think it's becoming cromulently clear that affixing a gun to a flying platform affords many advantages. It is, in fact, easier for a human controlled platform to shoot at something from up high than it is to fly directly over a target, remain stationary over a target and drop a grenade.
>hitting something like human with something like a bullet from above is not easy
Dropping a grenade on top of them is almost as hard as shooting them. If the gun is adjustable for the small angle difference when the drone isn't perfectly inline above them it becomes easier; the bullets aren't subject to any meaningful amount of POI deviation from gravity or spindrift so its pretty much line up and shoot.
They already have. They use grenades and mortars instead of pissingly shitass guns. Or, they just suicide into you with a kilo of C4 wrapped in 2 kilos of nails, or something like.
Why aren't drone/robo snipers more common? Seems like they would be insane effective.
>Mount a .50 cal long range rifle to a stabilized robot system >Give it a high resolution thermal zoom lens >Automatically calculate distance, bullet drop, wind, etc so that it hits 90% of the time >Either fully automate it with an AI or have someone remotely operate it like a Stugna-P
Is there something I'm missing here? I guess having it drone mounted would be hard due to weight, vibration and recoil, but a ground based system seems straight forward.
>Is there something I'm missing here
It's called a RWS or CROWS and it was used on about 25% of the MRAPs in GWOT. You're not missing anything you're 15-20 years late to the party.
Oh and those actually remote controlled machine guns and not robo-sniper, but I think for this scenario it’s more effective because you have unlimited ammo and you’re not trying to hide
It’s pretty damn effective, they see people trying to hop the wall and if they’re armed then it’s pop pop pop time
Snipers, probably not. I am a firm believer that grenade launchers are the future of drone bombing. The grenades are already plenty effective, but they need a way to improve the accuracy and versatility. Airburst grenades will probably be the final evolution. Imagine an XM25 setting airburst to 2 meters and firing at the ground from above. Guaranteed TBIs within 10 yards.
They need to design a drone that’s not just “drone with a rifle attached to it.” Seems like there’s much more efficient non-ergonomic designs that could be fabricated.
Just unmanned apache helicopters is good enough.
It is smaller and lighter because no human, no instruments no glass etc but still armored and massive enough that recoil has no impact on it.
NOW
Ukraine is the perfect drone testing ground, give it one more year and I'm sure some prototypes will pop up
The footage is gonna be rad. Just plinking vatnigs all day from right above them
I think Israel has made one, a .50 cal drone
Sadly I think that it's the first and the last major conflict with the wide usage of drones as I'm sure the armies will develop dedicated counters to them
Just like dedicated anti-tank, anti-ship, anti-aircraft counters made all those obsolete right?
It's entirely possible that counters for drones are made which takes them off the battlefield or morphs them into something different. Tanks and fighter aircraft stayed, but horses and uboats didn't.
And it's entirely possible those "counters" only counter them under certain conditions and situations, just like all other counters. Horses didn't disappear from the battlefield by being countered, I don't even know why you brought this up. And submarines are still being used, I don't know why you brought this one either.
Horses became obsolete in war because they weren't always good under fire, tended to die when shot, and vehicles eventually surpassed them. Uboats are called uboats and not submarines for a reason. Submarines are not the same as Uboats. Submarines are designed to travel underwater; uboats are designed to travel on the surface. The employment of submersible ships changed into something different.
>Uboats are called uboats and not submarines for a reason. Submarines are not the same as Uboats. Submarines are designed to travel underwater; uboats are designed to travel on the surface. The employment of submersible ships changed into something different.
U-boat is just the German word for Submarine. They've called them U-boats from the beginning and still do. The only reason we even know that is because it got popular in the wars to call enemy subs by their German name to differentiate them.
Yeah, anglo-americans love to call german or japanese stuff by their native names to sell better stories instead of using plain english.
>Horses didn't disappear from the battlefield by being countered
Horses, no. But cavalry, as in troops that fight from horseback as opposed to mounted infantry who ride to battle and then dismount to fight were comprehensively hard countered by machine guns in 1914.
Both sides still had lancers up till that point and expected to perform cavalry charges.
>but horses and uboats didn't.
Did I miss the memo about Submarines becoming obsolete?
train birds to tackle drones and crash them
I had an osprey attack my survey drone once. Shit was rad watching him fly above it and dive down onto it.
dropping frag grenades is probably more effective for the same weight than a loaded rifle that also needs to be way more stable (plus recoil)
I'd argue that the apache gunship is far more deadly with 1000 rounds of 30mm HE than it would be with 1000 droppable grenades, though.
What's more deadly
>one expensive apache gunship with 1000 rounds of 30mm
>1000 cheap drones with 1 droppable grenade each
>1 droppable grenade each
Oh anon, you're being rather silly.
that thing is fucking massive damn
That's a Ukrainian Make-A-Wish kid by the way, ensuring that Russians die before he does
Depends on the capability of the enemy. The drones are easier to stop with EW, while the apache needs to watch out for conventional AA threats.
I've played some ARMA 3 with the drone that has an LMG underneath. It's pretty effective, since it has a camera with high zoom and a piper that adjusts for range. I can be very accurate with it. People on the ground have a hard time shooting back. They have to guess the range and know how shooting upwards changes their ballistic trajectory. Very easy to kill 30 soldiers with it before needing to resupply.
Does it exist irl?
Hell why not just strap a pistol pointing straight down to one of their shit drones and just do bullet drops on people?
>Does it exist irl?
I think the turks made one, but it only carries an AR, not LMG
>Does it exist irl?
Not yet, but probably will soon. The cost-trade to take one down reliably is too good.
because hitting something like human with something like a bullet from above is not easy - certainly on par with hitting the drone from the ground - they are using HE because its effective in large radius
>hitting something like human with something like a bullet from above is not easy
Maybe for you.
Vertical, recoilless gravity VOG17 drops are easier than angled gunfire, simple as. They're lighter, simpler, and more deadly too. One quadcopter can carry 2 RKGs or 4+ VOGs for the weight of 1 empty gun.
Is sniping from an elevated position advantageous, yes or no?
No. Rooftop sniping is an amateurish mistake and bad habit perpetuated by fighting arabs in mud huts. Traditionally successful snipers, like machinegunners, operate from deeply buried narrow FOV locations enfilading the enemy.
Then why did they put machine guns on aircraft?
For non-sniping purposes, dear retard.
I think it's becoming cromulently clear that affixing a gun to a flying platform affords many advantages. It is, in fact, easier for a human controlled platform to shoot at something from up high than it is to fly directly over a target, remain stationary over a target and drop a grenade.
>hitting something like human with something like a bullet from above is not easy
Dropping a grenade on top of them is almost as hard as shooting them. If the gun is adjustable for the small angle difference when the drone isn't perfectly inline above them it becomes easier; the bullets aren't subject to any meaningful amount of POI deviation from gravity or spindrift so its pretty much line up and shoot.
They already have. They use grenades and mortars instead of pissingly shitass guns. Or, they just suicide into you with a kilo of C4 wrapped in 2 kilos of nails, or something like.
Just like drone planes, they are thwarted by cover and hidden underground shelters
Why aren't drone/robo snipers more common? Seems like they would be insane effective.
>Mount a .50 cal long range rifle to a stabilized robot system
>Give it a high resolution thermal zoom lens
>Automatically calculate distance, bullet drop, wind, etc so that it hits 90% of the time
>Either fully automate it with an AI or have someone remotely operate it like a Stugna-P
Is there something I'm missing here? I guess having it drone mounted would be hard due to weight, vibration and recoil, but a ground based system seems straight forward.
>Is there something I'm missing here
It's called a RWS or CROWS and it was used on about 25% of the MRAPs in GWOT. You're not missing anything you're 15-20 years late to the party.
Israel has those in certain areas of the border, and they’re operated by women
Oh and those actually remote controlled machine guns and not robo-sniper, but I think for this scenario it’s more effective because you have unlimited ammo and you’re not trying to hide
It’s pretty damn effective, they see people trying to hop the wall and if they’re armed then it’s pop pop pop time
Snipers, probably not. I am a firm believer that grenade launchers are the future of drone bombing. The grenades are already plenty effective, but they need a way to improve the accuracy and versatility. Airburst grenades will probably be the final evolution. Imagine an XM25 setting airburst to 2 meters and firing at the ground from above. Guaranteed TBIs within 10 yards.
Use an automated hunter-seeker which flies indoors up to the head of the target before detonating.
They need to design a drone that’s not just “drone with a rifle attached to it.” Seems like there’s much more efficient non-ergonomic designs that could be fabricated.
Yesterday
Just unmanned apache helicopters is good enough.
It is smaller and lighter because no human, no instruments no glass etc but still armored and massive enough that recoil has no impact on it.
Yeah why bother sniping when the drone can just go up to a guy, pop him, then move on to the next guy.