Is this a legit weapon now?
When the first drone bomb drop vids were released it felt like a gimmick. But now that we see new vids literally every single day, wounding soldiers, clearing ammo dumps, even eliminating fricking armored vehicles, it feels like it has a significant impact on the battlefield numbers.
>it felt like a gimmick
moron alert
I thought mass deploying these as we see now, would elicit an anti-drone response of some kind from Russia and soon enough we'd see/hear about Russia downing hundreds of drones daily
>would elicit an anti-drone response of some kind from Russia
>soon enough we'd see/hear about Russia downing hundreds of drones daily
Yup, confirmed moron.
Russia is deploying jammers and lots of drones do get downed, it's just that you can't jam everywhere all the time because jammers are targets for artillery (any effective jammer is not something man portable) and jamming also fricks with your own equipment as well as enemy equipment.
Also lately Ukraine has been going after EW stations of various stripes and acked quite a few.
when will tethered LOS drones be invented to prevent jamming?
>I thought mass deploying these as we see now, would elicit an anti-drone response of some kind from Russia and soon enough we'd see/hear about Russia downing hundreds of drones daily
That would require russian military to spending money on something else than lining the officer's pockets.
>legit weapon
if it works, it works
the main reason its seeing so much use is because of the slow, positional warfare adopted by both sides
with units sitting around with no major breakthroughs, its easier for slow moving drones to find a target
and without reaper drones armed with multiple hellfires, they are forced to jury-rig solutions on the cheap
I think it has much more to do with the surrounding infrastructure needed to run these. While you need a relay container, a pilot container, maintenance crews, an airstrip etc to run a predator or other military drones, all you need for these is a smartphone, the rest is done on the fly with few hands involved. I predict that this is the way of the future. Tanks are already obsolete for the same reason and how easy it is to kill them. Most dedicated military tech will vanish into obscurity once drone swarms can be operated via smartphone apps.
>Tanks are already obsolete for the same reason and how easy it is to kill them
so obsolete that the US is beefing up their armored divisions
MIC has existing production lines and useless vehicles are always a good way of fleecing the government. It’s much like the A10. No one ever needed it but it was built and used and some companies got very rich. Tanks are obsolete since the advent of second generation ATGM and have proven their uselessness to anything but machine gun fire in all conflicts in the past 20 years.
The illusion of their might stems from the fact that most nations build these obsolete hunks of metal in hopes for big tank battles instead of stocking up on drones and ATGM. People aren’t very smart.
>presented with objective, empirical observations
>disregards it anyways because it doesnt fit the rational model constructed in their head
>Tanks are obsolete since the advent of second generation ATGM
I don't think you even know what "obsolete" means.
Reminds me of the introduction of gunpowder in Europe
>tubes with piss powder replacing knights?
>no way in hell! Sorry for me swearing.
First tier militaries like France or England continued to tow their "muh knights" line.
Then Hussites Wars happened. And literal nobody's started BTFO those knights left and right. In the end Hussites were defeated by canon (pisspowder too), ironic. And France went back to slumber: "no need to worry we have cannon to defeat wagon fort now, knight rules supreme again"
Until Pavia, were French King stumbled around with his knights falling down under now evolved musket fire: "wtf happening?"
>Reminds me of the introduction of gunpowder in Europe
cavalry werent replaced by gunpowder
they co-existed for hundreds of years, with the thickest historical examples of armor being made specifically to resist early guns
and modern day militaries are in no way comparable to medieval ones, as the amount of information and ways to test hypothetical combat models exceeds what was available to medieval generals
which is why you have navies around the world initiating refits and reforms to their navies almost immediately after the falklands with increased AA capability
and you see the same thing happening today wit ukraine, the US prepares for a peer war by consolidating all their ABCTs into a large division sized elements with integral AA, artillery, and air control
Cavalry role greatly changed. From the main force it turned into auxiliary maneuver force.
When main strike force became
musketeers, and army building started revolving against that musketeers core.
>as the amount of information and ways to test hypothetical combat models exceeds what was available to medieval generals
Only you can see same processes as with medieval gunpowder introduction. First tier militaries have overmatch with "classical" force and they don't see urgency of exploiting new technology. They play with it but without proper dedication. While militaries that are behind inth classical force exploit these tech to full extenet. You can see US tries to help Ukraine with shipping killer drones... only US switchblades are behind the curve. Who cares about 500 20 times overpriced drones when Ukraine itself deployed thousands multi time use killer copters?
Just think about it it is easily within US capabilities to create and donate tens thounsdans killer quadcopters moded from commerical stuff and even befeed up with tech (target tracking and GPS denied navigation), and this would cheaper then couple Patriot batteries. US equavalent of fling lawnmowers? (Considering state of the Russians AD it would be disaster).
But no US MIC believes that such is beneath them and they pump out "knights".
>Only you can see same processes as with medieval gunpowder introduction
read again, armored cavalry was used alongside gunpowder for hundreds of years
your analogy that knights were rendered obsolete by guns is flawed from the start
That was process. Not one day change. Yes.
But again first tier militaries didn't get first memos and thought it was beneath them.
Hussies handgunners combined with wagon fort did in fact rendered knight obsolete. Until counter to wagon fort (cannon) was found and first tier militaries stopped there. While guns evolved and evolved until they reached critical mass and canceled knight with loud crashing victory against first tier military of the France.
Don't ignore writings on the wall or you can find yourself in the Francis I shoes.
Motherfricker, cavalry had a very important role in warfare all the way untill the middle of the 19th century.
Napoleon himself had a massive cavalry fetish and used them very effectively.
Tanks are noting more than an evolution on the concept.
>Revolving around the musketeers
Yeah no fricking shit, infantry is and always has been the backbone of any army, and will remain like that for the foreseeable future.
>Tanks are noting more than an evolution on the concept.
Tank was revolution of the concept.
Cavalry went into WWI without any protection from enemy fire and flopped hard. Tank revolutionized warfare with it's armor, rendering most of the enemy weapons useless. Armor is mandatory and key part of the tank.
But today we can see tanks become less and less relatively protected, there are more and more weapons that can destroy tank, tank changes to something Iike WWI cavalry (not protected) and tank starts flopping like cavalry on the WWI battlefield.
The tank expanded and improved on the cavalry's concept of a fast moving force that exploits(or in the tanks case creates) gaps in the enemy line.
>But today we can see tanks become less and less relatively protected
Tanks have been voulnerable to man-pirtable weapons since their inception moron, and that was over a century ago.
Each time the technology adapts, now there are effective APS systems being fielded en-masse and new armour configurations, not to mention advancements in battlefield intelligence and sensors.
Not matter how much you screech about obsolescence, the tanks is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
>The tank expanded and improved on the cavalry's concept of a fast moving force that exploits(or in the tanks case creates) gaps in the enemy line.
When fast moving force only had fast moving under the belt (cavalry) it flopped in WWI. Yes tank is not only armor but armor is key requirement. Ta k wss able to fearlessly march through shrapnel and machine guns that turned equations around.
Then firepower answered with antitank weapons and competition of sword and shield restarted. Important here that tanks had good position when they are wining that battle (they are knights in shiny armor), whernthey were losing to attack (they are cavalry in uniforms) they start flopping.
>effective APS systems being fielded en-masse
Yeah. Relevancy of the tank hinges on the ability of the tank be protected, ability to be knight.
>Yeah. Relevancy of the tank hinges on the ability of the tank be protected
That's the whole fricking point of the conversation you fricking mong. If tanks can be equipped with adequate protection against threats they may face then they are not obsolete and are still an extremely potent asset to any military.
Also, uniformed cavalry with little to no armour was still used to great effect for centuries after the proliferation of firearms on the battlefield.
>First tier militaries like France or England continued to tow their "muh knights" line
what the frick am i reading on k now
how do you think those annoying frogs won the 100 year war
>and without reaper drones armed with multiple hellfires
Even if Ukraine had access to Predator drones you could probably outfit the entire Ukrainian army with grenade dropping drones for less than the price of a single Hellfire.
Dropping munitions from drones requires a static enemy with no situational awareness and no EW or SIGINT support.
They are niche weapon that has works very well in its niche.
Likely wouldn't work against any modern army, like say the Chinese, if they aren't secretly also a massive paper tiger riddled with mismanagement
Unlike Russia, China has an enormous electronics industry and tech sector. No comparison.
Do you think a modern army is constantly on the move? Lol. Real warfare is sitting on your ass 80% of the time, not to mention sleeping, eating and shitting. Lmao even
But it's a start. Currently they are small civ drones that are modified to release a pincher when a photo is taken. Add the US war machine behind that concept and they can make small mil drones with small guided but effective munitions. Hell, put the same grenade in a laser guided missle and it's now a hunter killer
>. Hell, put the same grenade in a laser guided missle and it's now a hunter killer
>MIC: this would be $160000 plus tax.
Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised to see these integrated at the squad level with how effective they've been, even in a reconnaissance role.
It's been a legitimate weapon since the middle of the Afghan war. The shitskins were using these well before the Ukrainian war. Just wait when china starts supplying swarm drones to Russia. I doubt it would be as technologically sophisticated but nothing that can't be fixed by replacing the AI with a group of incel gamers with an affinity for murder.
>one year of people being killed by thing
>so many Russians killed they're not even clearing the dead from their trenches, just walking over them as they huddle in their holes
>IS THIS A WEAPON?!
nah bro like grenades don't even hurt lmao
There is alot of hype around them because they produce a bunch of 4k murder porn but in reality the vast majority of casualties on both sides are due to traditional Artillery. There is nothing a drone does that Artillery doesn't do better, other then be cheaper.
Drones are literally top tier artillery spotters.
They even can drop bombs while spotting.
You’re aware of the casualties being generated in this war, right? Even if these drones caused 10 casualties a day it wouldn’t amount to a tiny fraction of total casualties caused by traditional weapon systems — mortars, howitzers, bombs, machine guns, etc. Seeing it on camera is what makes it fun for you, captures your imagination, etc. But, in reality, they’re propaganda.
Yup, I'd much rather hear the buzz of a drone then the whistle of a arty round overhead
>Even if these drones caused 10 casualties a day it wouldn’t amount to a tiny fraction of total casualties caused by traditional weapon systems — mortars, howitzers, bombs, machine guns, etc.
I have casual observation rummors that drones became leading cause of the frontline Russian casualties.
>But, in reality, they’re propaganda
Switchblade 300, the one calls a failure was described as having 90% successrate generating 1-3 KIA or heavy WIA per drone, if we extrapolate those numbers it would mean 1% of Russian casualties was done by Switchblade alone
The fact that there aren't videos recording tens of thousands of casualties via death by drone grenade means that it's only useful weapon against enemies without anti-air. So Russia does have capable anti-drone weapons/detection but obviously can't be everywhere.
So these drone grenade videos are obviously in places where Russia lacks the anti-drone power.
I like the kamikaze drones personally.
If it works, it works.
And when it doesn't, that's okay, because it's cheap and easily replace, both in financial and material terms.
>Dumb tourist wasn't around for the Arab Spring
Random anons ITT
>we knew it all along
Russian army
>wtf is this new shite, we weren't prepared for this
>Is this a legit weapon now?
>When the first plane bomb drop reports were released it felt like a gimmick. But now that we see new pics literally every single day, wounding soldiers, clearing ammo dumps, even eliminating fricking armored vehicles, it feels like it has a significant impact on the battlefield numbers.
You see the footage they want you to see, Ukies report a ~4 sortie life expectancy before being hit by small arms. This is by no means a deal breaker as in 4 sorties drones average 1 solid hit and they cost nothing.
As for racing suicide drones the numbers are actually much worse, due to the very limited battery life most run flat before finding a target even with a spotting drone talking them on. This could be solved by purpose built suicide drones with longer battery life but for now it's an issue.
>Is this a legit weapon now?
It's ongoing, yes.
I'm more interested in drones being normalized as a squad level recon/situational awareness tool. A literal eye-in-the-sky is so OD it's not even funny.
Thing is drone users quickly realize if you can put drone eyes above enemy squad you may as well drop nade form this drone instead of walking into danger to fight as grunt. And warfare quickly evolves into something else.
it takes massive battery life
you don't want to fly a recon drone with a grenade on