Isn't it still a strategy in the Ukraine conflict? They understood that destroying a car or two with equipment that cost $1 000 000 wasn't gonna work long term so they strap grenades to shitty drones to either drop them somewhere it hurts or to make a kamikaze drone. And if the drone is shot down before they can do anything, they still haven't lost that much money
Even the cheapest FPV drones in Ukraine cost a few 100 euros. 350 is the lowest i have heard, keeping in mind they need to be able to carry a signal several kms, need a camera and need enough lift capacity for an explosive and shrapnel.
Yeah - a sub $500 guided munition is "free" insofar as the MIC is concerned. Honestly, it's pretty cheap as far as warfare would be concerned. It probably costs a few hundred dollars to, not even kidding, kit out a child-soldier guerilla fighter. Fatigues, flip flops, a bandolier of ammunition that doesn't fit in their AK47, the aforementioned rifle and ammo...let along a fully equipped soldier in a modern army.
Yea but why waste a multi million dollar piece of ordinance on a 350 euro drone that delivers the payload 1/3 of the time? I want reliability if I’m spending that much on my missile
A javelin F&F missile cost around 100k. Some older ATGMs can be produced for a 1000. So yes it is cheap, even compared to a regular artillery shell. And it gives a lot of range with a good accuracy.
Missile is actually definetely worth it. A Javelin is so advanced there's basically nothing a tank can do to not get blown up ( to the point where the only counterplay is hoping you don't get spotted or your support killed the Javelin carriers before ) and tanks are worth a lot more than 100k.
The cheap ones on Amazon have a battery life of like 5 minutes and can’t carry a payload. Even custom drones the components (board and IO shield, batteries, motors, props, cameras, and actuators) can easily get over $75. And that’s creating a custom program and doesn’t cover the remote controller
75? Flight stacks for anything that lifts weights start at 60$. Motors easily 100$. Vtx and camera at least 60$ if you don't want to instantly lose all signal. Batteries can't be shipped overseas legally so it's a huge pain to reliably get them. Frame, receiver, props are the only cheap parts here
They have a less than 10% success rate now. Simple jamming technology has given Russia a big edge vs drones. They can only operate in areas that don’t have jamming equipment.
We left Afghanistan after holding the country for two decades. The only reason we didn't destroy the Taliban is because America sucks at fighting guerilla fighters and we gently prefer to not genocide the local population they use to hide in. But even then, after 20 years of occupation we lost less men than the terrorist attack that took us there in the first place.
I'll give it to Vietnam, they won, but you're acting like they decimated us in combat. The veitcong were barely holding on and were essentially crippled at the end of the war. Also there was a fuck ton of government incompetence during the Vietnam war. Total, "hey you know how all of our aircraft aren't built for dog fighting, a lot don't even have guns and it's best you shoot your missile when the enemy is miles out? Yeah, you can't fight the enemy until you confirm visual contact when they have the advantage. Imagine public reception if we accidentally shot down one of our own" along with, "you have one corridor you can fly your jets and planes through. No I don't care that all of North Vietnam's anti air capabilities are pointed directly at that corridor, also you're not allowed to bomb those anti air defenses because Soviet and Chinese advisors could be there" these were actual orders given to the military.
We didn't lose to the north Koreans, we had crushed them and pushed their forces up to the edge of China. We had taken almost all of the Korean peninsula. And then China literally threw millions of troops at us, pushed us back to the original border, and then even with millions of Chinese troops slamming down onto our troops and so much artillery you could not hear anything other than the drum of explosions, we still held the line. If China hadn't entered the war and started sending waves of their soldiers in a, "if we keep throwing soldiers at them, eventually they'll run out of bullets" tactic, Korea would be whole. And in the end, we managed to keep south Korea from being ruled under North Korea. Not exactly a loss. Even war wise it wasn't a loss, legally the Korean war is still on going, it's just paused.
Warfare is almost full circle. We started off with melee warfare, and eventually armor and jamming tech will reach a point that we'll have little choice but to return to it
Ya based on what I see on r/CombateFootage Ukraine is basically Miata drift parking into Russians heads with drone bombs and Russia is doing nothing but losing
Well, no wonder, they're cherry-picking. It's not like Ukraine would go around publishing videos of them losing drones to jammers or failing to hit anything. In the war where there are hundreds of thousands of soldiers on each sides, even 300-500 brutal videos of brutal drone kills (with the shittiest music known to humankind) per months are nothing but a drop in the ocean.
Yeah same for me, I used to go there for information but it's just propaganda at this point. If you even mention that the sub is not neutral be prepared for mass down votes. It's still better than pro russia subs (they sometimes take ukrainian footage and post it as russian lmao).
Yeah but at the begging of the war combat footage was just posts of different clips from both sides (it was like that before too, you had clips from allahu akbar army and us army pov. Just combat footage as the name implies). I'm for ukraine all the way, but it's getting kinda ridiculous, we need to remember that russians are not the only ones dying like the content there would suggest.
I think it's not only because of propaganda, but because some russian units are trying to limit use of phones, and I'd imagine, what soldiers post. Somewhere it's because of genuine concern for troop visibility and giving away information of their position, etc, and somewhere it's because officers are bitches. There are distinct lack of footage even on russian TV, most of what I've seen even in telegram-channels are photos of guys with flags in villages now. Compared to few months back when I could easily find hour and longer footage from frontline, there is a drop in information posting. Tis is anecdotal evidence, but I think it might play a role.
Yeh I was about to say the numbers appear to be in line with most military techs. As in, "10 used, 4 hits, 2 effective hits" (divided by two on the effective hits if the enemy has counter measures, which they always do after a month).
And so: "back to the drawing board, we go".
Drones were a huge meta for ukraine because the (cost:reward)/risk metrics was through the roof, but you can't defend a whole country with drones. You need a boot front line at some point.
One day maybe. Small 8-legged spider drones that can climb any obstacles, shoot up to 30 high accuracy shots, can go dormat as a land-mine, have short-flight capabilities, and cost 100 bucks to make, so that you can deploy 5-6 millions on a theater. This will dominate warfare right up until we invent bullet proof personal combat suits the drones can't penetrate.
10% would still make drones by far the most effective weapon on the battlefield, keeping in mind both sides have fired millions of shells at each other and the casualty hasn't been close to 1 in 10 shells.
Go back to swallowing headline propaganda about how we're the good guys....
Russia and Ukraine both have committed no specific warcrimes. Of course warfare comes with warcrimes... You think we didn't run over a few military age afghan kids who wanted to sell us oranges, because stopping the convoy = ambush...?
There's no good guys, only the facts. Morally dubious acts committed by both sides should not be as relevant as remembering Russia invaded from the beginning
Infantry was always relevant. You can use your entire arsenal to turn a country into a glass plain, but it's Tommy Atkins and the P.B.I. that you need to hold it. Airpower, artillery and tanks are to support them.
Definitely true. I mean in the case of active battle , the doctrine used to require the use of armor and artillery closer to the frontline for softening up before infantry pushing, whereas now you don't want to risk those weapons getting blown up by drones , so you use infantry + drones for speed and concealment
Crossbows cant ruin plate armour nor did they ruin the military meta, that was longbows 100-50 years later depending on when you consider crossbows to be at their peak.
Sure whatever but they were not a "game changer" in the way longbows became, this is a very evident fact of history all you redditors insultingly think you can claim better on
crossbows are notoriously more powerful than longbows, but at shorter range because a bolt has a direct trajectory while a longbow has an arc-flight trajectory.
That's why you'd use crossbows in sieges, but longbows in open fields.
And longbows predate crossbows by about 8000 years.... You're confusing longbows with "western compound bows" that we adopted from central asian horse archers.
And, in fact, crappy armour WAS a thing on field, because a good chestplate made of high quality steel was a very rare thing, and many soldiers did not have any armour at all, and some of them have had some type of chainmail, and it was not supposed to stop any type of crossbow bolt, so crossbow was a meta changer, it was simple, effective and cheap, so it had a place on field until firearms was invented and mass used.
I can't believe this guy linked two Wikipedia pages to support his creative writing and you people praised him, Jesus fuck.
He had shown his lack of knowledge by stating longbows are shot in arc trajectory (they aren't) and then going on some useless tangent about "real" longbows.
And just despite it all, including the heavy crossbows able to pierce poor armour, it just evidently wasn't the game changer that mass levied english longbowmen turned out to be.
You are the definition of a useless cock fluffer and I hope you know it.
I think he's thinking of the English longbow, not western compound bows. English longbows have been shown to effectively pierce iron armor, but only very slightly pierce well made steel plate. That's pretty much the same kind of piercing power that medieval crossbows had.
Yeah, everyone would have been shocked the first time mass archery was used in war, or knight cavalry, or artillery, or muskets, or machineguns or the tank.
Before each of those military innovations, everyone would have assumed they lived in the time of peak warfare. They'd have no comprehension of how war would change.
Wasn’t too long ago the first nuclear weapons broke warfare completely too. We even warned the cities first, and the government of Japan basically covered it up, and claimed we were full of it because there’s no way such a weapon existed.
It also broke the meta, being put on everything for a few years, right down to portable jeep mounted launchers for tactical warheads
I didn’t say the US didn’t bomb the place, I said that the authorities said it was propaganda, and obviously a fantasy with no basis in reality. Then a miniature sun appeared for an instant a couple days later, in total defiance of morality, the “meta of warfare,” or a care about what the authorities believed on the matter
By saying 'we warned them but the govt didn't listen' you are basically saying that it's the Japanese government's fault you nuked their people. Like if Japan had just listened and promptly surrendered you wouldn't have had to annihilate those innocent people.
Do you not see how that is shifting the blame? Even if it wasn't your main point it is still a careless implication.
Personally I just wish Americans would stop making excuses for vaporising all those women and children and just own it and be sorry.
I think u/Braindeadkarthus is pointing out how unprecedented the atomic bomb was when it was first used. They were responding to my own comment about how generations prior to any major warfare innovation would have been unable to fathom war in any other way.
Before the musket, everyone would have thought that war would always be fought mostly hand-to-hand with knights being the juggernauts of the battlefield. Before the invention of the plane, everyone would have thought war would remain on the seas or on the ground.
Until recently, we all thought future wars would anchor around tanks and not tiny whining death drones. Makes you think of how soldiers might look or how conventional handheld weaponry might change.
Regarding the atomic bomb; Japan would have not expected anyone to suddenly have the ability to wipe an entire city off the map with a single munition. It would have been like one side stating they'll strike down their enemies with the Wrath of God - no one is really going to believe them.
The Americans most likely knew this too, but it's always worth a try as you'll never know when an enemy won't think you're bluffing and will genuinely start panicking over your supposed wonder-weapon.
Imagine walking outside tomorrow and a piece of paper falls in front of you that said “tomorrow, Russia will move this city to another plane of existence and it will be stranded there with anyone who hasn’t left. If you do not wish for this to happen, leave tonight.”
The US (and pretty much everyone else scientists included) would immediately discredit and dismiss such a possibility.
If it actually happened though, it would be pretty much the same as the atom bomb though, and everything would change as suddenly armor, conventional defenses, and offensive techniques are all instantly obsolete
Yep, you're right. While conventional war does continue, no one really thinks about how tip-toe major powers have gotten. It's all proxy or hit-down wars now.
That in itself has changed warfare as well, since there's fewer instances of "open" war - it's more about skirmishes and guerilla warfare. Simply because of who is fighting who.
They cancel full scale warfare between great powers
There are still plenty of wars between parties that do not have nukes. Ukraine-Russia currently, but also Armenia-Azerbaijan for example. Heck just 20 years ago basically half of Africa's countries were having their own great war
Conventional wars between nuclear armed powers is also possible, but just not "full" wars like you said. Pakistan tried to invade India in the Kargil War of 1999 for example but once India expelled Pakistan they didn't invade them back since they didn't want a nuclear exchange.
This is prolly how a China US war over Taiwan would look. Lots of naval warfare and fighting in Taiwan, but the US probably isn't going to land troops in Shanghai or anything
Medium range yeah. Shotguns dont stop working at like 10 feet ala Cod style but on an open field you probably have an advantage with an AR over a pump shotty
Not arguing with you at all here, just adding context since this came up elsewhere too. Aerial observation of artillery has existed since 1915. Drones are a nice improvement to that, but absolutely not "breaking the meta" like the meme is claiming.
My ghost would sure be pissed if I died to one compared to an enemy soldier. Nothing like dying to a guy hiding behind a remote control for a modified children's toy.
Javelins were effective early on, but drones are why the Russians started using Turtle Tanks. I don't know how many are turtle vs regular tho.
I watched the Task and Purpose video on the new M1-A3, and he said something like half the Abrams given to Ukrainians were take out action by Russian drones. Drones appear to be extremely effective against tanks.
Tanks have always been vulnerable to top-down or side attacks. Weapons exploiting this have existed for decades basically since the Javelin was fielded. FPV tank drones are basically short range, slow, low power Javelins.
What we're seeing in Ukraine is basically a lack of countermeasures, problems with employment, and doctrinal flaws. It's not really any different than the horrendous tank losses Turkey suffered in Syria or Russia lost in Grozny.
Yes, drones can be lethal to people and tanks, but no, they did not "break the meta" of warfare or whatever.
Drones+Grenades are much more cost effective than artillery. And perhaps more importantly you can target with them much better. This is useful for taking out stragglers where a strike prolly isn't worth it, but also very useful in taking out machinery
Indeed probably the most useful use of drones is to take out artillery pieces
I'd also bet that there's some sort of psychological effect tbh, watching people's helplessness in the face of the brrrting drone is a different experience. They can get you pretty much anywhere after all, even a fucking trench, and once you hear the noise unless you're properly prepared you're kinda fucked
Finally, as others have mentioned, drones also play a pretty vital role in observational roles
Drones are just harassing fire. They have more of a psychological effect than anything. Yes, they do kill soldiers and even vehicles, but they are absolutely not able to replace artillery or conventional anti tank weapons in any fashion. You will absolutely not prepare strong points for assault with drones instead of artillery.
I thought that's what warfare was, figuring out how to kill the opposition in the most efficient way possible. Drones are the thing for now, later it'll be some new horrifying tech.
Ukraine is pretty much any weapons contractors wet dream, their country doesn’t have to send any men over. But they can test all their new and old toys and gadgets to see how they compete against an actual military. Not a bunch of dudes in the desert with AKs.
Pisses the think tanks off bc 70% of their doctrines have now become obsolete. But other than that it’s just a great learning experience.
There's already plenty of counters to drones (at least with what I saw/installed/used in the Navy) that are actively used, the Houthis have been repeatedly trying to get a drone near any ship but they keep getting "shot" down. War is about evolving and being able to tell the adversary "parry this you filthy casual". Also I'd love to see them try to take on a CWIS
mestrenandi@reddit
Lol you wish
Idiot_of_Babel@reddit
You can buy a drone for that much, but you'd be better off delivering the bomb manually.
gloumii@reddit
Isn't it still a strategy in the Ukraine conflict? They understood that destroying a car or two with equipment that cost $1 000 000 wasn't gonna work long term so they strap grenades to shitty drones to either drop them somewhere it hurts or to make a kamikaze drone. And if the drone is shot down before they can do anything, they still haven't lost that much money
jonasnee@reddit
Even the cheapest FPV drones in Ukraine cost a few 100 euros. 350 is the lowest i have heard, keeping in mind they need to be able to carry a signal several kms, need a camera and need enough lift capacity for an explosive and shrapnel.
VoDoka@reddit
Yea, ok, but that is still incredibly cheap in military terms?
Matiwapo@reddit
Considering that one guided missile costs like 5 million USD, €350 to drop a guided explosive is ludicrously inexpensive
lobin-of-rocksley@reddit
Yeah - a sub $500 guided munition is "free" insofar as the MIC is concerned. Honestly, it's pretty cheap as far as warfare would be concerned. It probably costs a few hundred dollars to, not even kidding, kit out a child-soldier guerilla fighter. Fatigues, flip flops, a bandolier of ammunition that doesn't fit in their AK47, the aforementioned rifle and ammo...let along a fully equipped soldier in a modern army.
Tox1cAshes@reddit
A fully equipped US soldier is absolutely bankrolled at like $20,000 in equipment each
NetStaIker@reddit
Yea but why waste a multi million dollar piece of ordinance on a 350 euro drone that delivers the payload 1/3 of the time? I want reliability if I’m spending that much on my missile
jonasnee@reddit
A javelin F&F missile cost around 100k. Some older ATGMs can be produced for a 1000. So yes it is cheap, even compared to a regular artillery shell. And it gives a lot of range with a good accuracy.
827167@reddit
So you're telling me that I can buy a missile or a house
PascalTheWise@reddit
If you find a 100k house yes
827167@reddit
Depends where you are really
_sephylon_@reddit
Missile is actually definetely worth it. A Javelin is so advanced there's basically nothing a tank can do to not get blown up ( to the point where the only counterplay is hoping you don't get spotted or your support killed the Javelin carriers before ) and tanks are worth a lot more than 100k.
FullTimeHarlot@reddit
Can you get a mortgage on a missle?
makomirocket@reddit
Remember these are military budgets you're talking about
Got2Bfree@reddit
You get wifi fpv drones for 35$ but their range is about 50 - 100m so they're absolutely useless for combat.
ModernT1mes@reddit
Iirc it was ISIS that pioneered the drone idea. Ukraine just perfected it.
ChadWolf98@reddit
It doesnt matter for ukis, they have the money cheat so they can easily spend your money because they get endless free money from the west
RaidenYaeMiku@reddit
You can absolutely buy one for that price, put some c4 on it, and drop it some russians, and ukraine has been doing that
bell37@reddit
The cheap ones on Amazon have a battery life of like 5 minutes and can’t carry a payload. Even custom drones the components (board and IO shield, batteries, motors, props, cameras, and actuators) can easily get over $75. And that’s creating a custom program and doesn’t cover the remote controller
CrownEatingParasite@reddit
75? Flight stacks for anything that lifts weights start at 60$. Motors easily 100$. Vtx and camera at least 60$ if you don't want to instantly lose all signal. Batteries can't be shipped overseas legally so it's a huge pain to reliably get them. Frame, receiver, props are the only cheap parts here
MinuteDachsund@reddit
Be quiet and change Don's diaper while I collect up votes for clowning you in worldnews.
Sad conservative.
Lol
daryllau88@reddit
Bought on Wish...
mike_pants@reddit
Ukraine is using drones to dump flaming thermite all over Russian artillery. My hobbies can't do that.
Subjugatealllife@reddit
They have a less than 10% success rate now. Simple jamming technology has given Russia a big edge vs drones. They can only operate in areas that don’t have jamming equipment.
seastatefive@reddit
So bomb the jammers!
arbiter12@reddit
If you have infinite logistics, infinite industry and infinite minds for the infinite r&d, warfare will take you wherever you need it to.
But no one has any of those things.
If you can directly locate and bomb the jammer, you don't need offensive drones in the first place.
Giraff3sAreFake@reddit
Except the U.S. Military.
Never underestimate the amount of money the government will throw at something it deems a threat.
Glass-Opportunity713@reddit
We lost to the Taliban. And the Viet Cong. And the North Koreans.
fun_alt123@reddit
Your being a bit disproportionate there.
We left Afghanistan after holding the country for two decades. The only reason we didn't destroy the Taliban is because America sucks at fighting guerilla fighters and we gently prefer to not genocide the local population they use to hide in. But even then, after 20 years of occupation we lost less men than the terrorist attack that took us there in the first place.
I'll give it to Vietnam, they won, but you're acting like they decimated us in combat. The veitcong were barely holding on and were essentially crippled at the end of the war. Also there was a fuck ton of government incompetence during the Vietnam war. Total, "hey you know how all of our aircraft aren't built for dog fighting, a lot don't even have guns and it's best you shoot your missile when the enemy is miles out? Yeah, you can't fight the enemy until you confirm visual contact when they have the advantage. Imagine public reception if we accidentally shot down one of our own" along with, "you have one corridor you can fly your jets and planes through. No I don't care that all of North Vietnam's anti air capabilities are pointed directly at that corridor, also you're not allowed to bomb those anti air defenses because Soviet and Chinese advisors could be there" these were actual orders given to the military.
We didn't lose to the north Koreans, we had crushed them and pushed their forces up to the edge of China. We had taken almost all of the Korean peninsula. And then China literally threw millions of troops at us, pushed us back to the original border, and then even with millions of Chinese troops slamming down onto our troops and so much artillery you could not hear anything other than the drum of explosions, we still held the line. If China hadn't entered the war and started sending waves of their soldiers in a, "if we keep throwing soldiers at them, eventually they'll run out of bullets" tactic, Korea would be whole. And in the end, we managed to keep south Korea from being ruled under North Korea. Not exactly a loss. Even war wise it wasn't a loss, legally the Korean war is still on going, it's just paused.
Giraff3sAreFake@reddit
Exactly, if America really wanted to, they could've glassed the entire middle east in a day.
Iirc, Iraq had the 3rd biggest military before desert storm, within 72 hours they didn't even have the largest military in their COUNTRY.
Invisualracing@reddit
Home on jam
Aka the bumblebee strategy.
aboatdatfloat@reddit
Warfare is almost full circle. We started off with melee warfare, and eventually armor and jamming tech will reach a point that we'll have little choice but to return to it
moralfaq@reddit
« An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age. »
BonkeyKongthesecond@reddit
Meh, just use kinetic weapons, flamethrowers and acid guns against Jedi. Easy. Oh, and don't forget to always play Pazaak in your mind.
BonkeyKongthesecond@reddit
Can we just go to duels with blades and axes? I feel like war became pretty bad for the random grunt after Crossbow and gunpowder
PM_ME_GOOD_SUBS@reddit
Just like in Dune? Nice.
jonasnee@reddit
Melee will never become more powerful than ranged weapons, a gun simply creates far more kinetic energi than a guy with a sword ever could.
pockets3d@reddit
Yeah but what about mechs.
fun_alt123@reddit
If mechs ever became wide spread I'd imagine them being mostly used as infantry support weapons. Same thing as power armour.
It takes a lot to significantly damage it and it can carry very heavy weapons that destroy cover, bunker positions and can support infantry.
So unless we manage to develop plasma based melee weapons we will probably stick to guns.
lunacraz@reddit
the slow blade pierces the shield
DOGGOSIZLYFE@reddit
Guns still work in jammers and go through armor better than melee ever has, bullets improve as armor does.
762x39innawoods@reddit
But guns jam themselves
Derahel@reddit
Just because it doesn't jam other technology, doesn't mean it isn't jamming technology!
rokossovsky41@reddit
I've never seen this claim before, <10% is quite low. Is there any paper or whatever that has more information about this?
geofox777@reddit
Ya based on what I see on r/CombateFootage Ukraine is basically Miata drift parking into Russians heads with drone bombs and Russia is doing nothing but losing
rokossovsky41@reddit
Well, no wonder, they're cherry-picking. It's not like Ukraine would go around publishing videos of them losing drones to jammers or failing to hit anything. In the war where there are hundreds of thousands of soldiers on each sides, even 300-500 brutal videos of brutal drone kills (with the shittiest music known to humankind) per months are nothing but a drop in the ocean.
geofox777@reddit
Yeah I fully agree, was really just bitching because I used to love that sub but it’s gotten so clearly biased to Ukraine it’s not enjoyable anymore.
VirtualPantsu@reddit
Yeah same for me, I used to go there for information but it's just propaganda at this point. If you even mention that the sub is not neutral be prepared for mass down votes. It's still better than pro russia subs (they sometimes take ukrainian footage and post it as russian lmao).
Naive-Fold-1374@reddit
joins reddit
looks inside
propaganda
No offence, just find it kinda funny
VirtualPantsu@reddit
Yeah but at the begging of the war combat footage was just posts of different clips from both sides (it was like that before too, you had clips from allahu akbar army and us army pov. Just combat footage as the name implies). I'm for ukraine all the way, but it's getting kinda ridiculous, we need to remember that russians are not the only ones dying like the content there would suggest.
Naive-Fold-1374@reddit
I think it's not only because of propaganda, but because some russian units are trying to limit use of phones, and I'd imagine, what soldiers post. Somewhere it's because of genuine concern for troop visibility and giving away information of their position, etc, and somewhere it's because officers are bitches. There are distinct lack of footage even on russian TV, most of what I've seen even in telegram-channels are photos of guys with flags in villages now. Compared to few months back when I could easily find hour and longer footage from frontline, there is a drop in information posting. Tis is anecdotal evidence, but I think it might play a role.
pockets3d@reddit
It sounds low but when you consider the vast majority of shells and bullets are fired at essentially nothing it isn't low at all. .
c_sulla@reddit
Costs a lot more than a bullet though
Subjugatealllife@reddit
It was a Ukrainian drone squadron reporting on numbers. Forgot where I saw it
doogenburns@reddit
Seems legit
arbiter12@reddit
Yeh I was about to say the numbers appear to be in line with most military techs. As in, "10 used, 4 hits, 2 effective hits" (divided by two on the effective hits if the enemy has counter measures, which they always do after a month).
And so: "back to the drawing board, we go".
Drones were a huge meta for ukraine because the (cost:reward)/risk metrics was through the roof, but you can't defend a whole country with drones. You need a boot front line at some point.
One day maybe. Small 8-legged spider drones that can climb any obstacles, shoot up to 30 high accuracy shots, can go dormat as a land-mine, have short-flight capabilities, and cost 100 bucks to make, so that you can deploy 5-6 millions on a theater. This will dominate warfare right up until we invent bullet proof personal combat suits the drones can't penetrate.
Meretan94@reddit
Throw enough cheap 10% odds at the enemy and something will stick.
jonasnee@reddit
10% would still make drones by far the most effective weapon on the battlefield, keeping in mind both sides have fired millions of shells at each other and the casualty hasn't been close to 1 in 10 shells.
grimeygeorge2027@reddit
Though, if it can take out an artillery piece 5% of the time, it's cheap enough that it still favors the drone
SeaYogurtcloset6262@reddit
You can if you are brave enough
Mesarthim1349@reddit
Prerequisites: 1. Live in America
Meretan94@reddit
Thermite is not that hard to make if you put your mind to it. It’s mainly alumina and iron oxide.
Steebin64@reddit
But whats number 1.?
BuckfuttersbyII@reddit
And demolish battle cruisers. Navy meta ruined.
SadisticDragonfly@reddit
No but with determination and some forbidden diy knoledges, you can make yours drop pipebombs or napalm tanks
gfolder@reddit
Why not use drones with lasers making people's eyes blind instead?
mike_pants@reddit
Because committing war crimes is generally frowned upon.
gfolder@reddit
A bit too late to make that determination
arbiter12@reddit
Go back to swallowing headline propaganda about how we're the good guys....
Russia and Ukraine both have committed no specific warcrimes. Of course warfare comes with warcrimes... You think we didn't run over a few military age afghan kids who wanted to sell us oranges, because stopping the convoy = ambush...?
gfolder@reddit
There's no good guys, only the facts. Morally dubious acts committed by both sides should not be as relevant as remembering Russia invaded from the beginning
shutinlear53@reddit
Pesky Geneva Conventions outlawing fun
gfolder@reddit
Lol maiming blinding > killing people
Varixx95__@reddit
Yes they can if you have thermite and a little tech skills
mike_pants@reddit
I have no proximity to Russian artillery.
Varixx95__@reddit
Fair enough
mike_pants@reddit
Honestly, if they've figured out how to hide a squadron of T-90s in Bed-Stuy, they deserve to win.
vischy_bot@reddit
Didn't ruin the meta just altered it. Rejoice infantry is relevant again . The meta is closer to cod now lol
PM_ME_UR__ELECTRONS@reddit
Infantry was always relevant. You can use your entire arsenal to turn a country into a glass plain, but it's Tommy Atkins and the P.B.I. that you need to hold it. Airpower, artillery and tanks are to support them.
vischy_bot@reddit
Definitely true. I mean in the case of active battle , the doctrine used to require the use of armor and artillery closer to the frontline for softening up before infantry pushing, whereas now you don't want to risk those weapons getting blown up by drones , so you use infantry + drones for speed and concealment
Reddit_Mods_Are_Ugly@reddit
Crossbows cant ruin plate armour nor did they ruin the military meta, that was longbows 100-50 years later depending on when you consider crossbows to be at their peak.
classic useless shitpost as always.
jonasnee@reddit
Crossbows are far more capable of punching through armor than longbows are.
If longbows where effective anti armor weapons no one would have transitioned to guns.
Reddit_Mods_Are_Ugly@reddit
Sure whatever but they were not a "game changer" in the way longbows became, this is a very evident fact of history all you redditors insultingly think you can claim better on
jonasnee@reddit
how where longbows a gamechanger? by what metric?
stillindie@reddit
Did the Church ever ask everyone to stop using Longbows?
Reddit_Mods_Are_Ugly@reddit
That ban included bows dumbass
arbiter12@reddit
crossbows are notoriously more powerful than longbows, but at shorter range because a bolt has a direct trajectory while a longbow has an arc-flight trajectory.
That's why you'd use crossbows in sieges, but longbows in open fields.
And longbows predate crossbows by about 8000 years.... You're confusing longbows with "western compound bows" that we adopted from central asian horse archers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow#Medieval_Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow#Prehistory
TheChronoCross@reddit
Finally, someone had to say it.
Also crossbows absolutely did fuck up crappy plate and mail. Thank you for being the voice of reason.
Arkhyz@reddit
And, in fact, crappy armour WAS a thing on field, because a good chestplate made of high quality steel was a very rare thing, and many soldiers did not have any armour at all, and some of them have had some type of chainmail, and it was not supposed to stop any type of crossbow bolt, so crossbow was a meta changer, it was simple, effective and cheap, so it had a place on field until firearms was invented and mass used.
Reddit_Mods_Are_Ugly@reddit
It was evidently not a "meta changer" since we can clearly point to longbows being the downfall of French knights and chivalry
Reddit_Mods_Are_Ugly@reddit
I can't believe this guy linked two Wikipedia pages to support his creative writing and you people praised him, Jesus fuck.
He had shown his lack of knowledge by stating longbows are shot in arc trajectory (they aren't) and then going on some useless tangent about "real" longbows.
And just despite it all, including the heavy crossbows able to pierce poor armour, it just evidently wasn't the game changer that mass levied english longbowmen turned out to be.
You are the definition of a useless cock fluffer and I hope you know it.
ChadWolf98@reddit
Crossbows are soo good they are used even today for hunting and some spec ops missions.
Reddit_Mods_Are_Ugly@reddit
Utter delusion. Dent? Maybe. puncture? No.
falkodalko@reddit
Reddit_Mods_Are_Ugly@reddit
It is legitimately utter delusion and all you 4chin tards can do is send this shit
MrBVS@reddit
I think he's thinking of the English longbow, not western compound bows. English longbows have been shown to effectively pierce iron armor, but only very slightly pierce well made steel plate. That's pretty much the same kind of piercing power that medieval crossbows had.
samurai_for_hire@reddit
Plate armor continued to be a thing until proper firearms came around
Uniq_Eros@reddit
Pretty sure I remember Assassin Creed's difficulty dropping considerably when I bought the crossbow. Do you need more proof?
Absolutemehguy@reddit
This guy histories
geofox777@reddit
It was also pretty cool when you could hang people with the rope dart
Reddit_Mods_Are_Ugly@reddit
Shutup bitch
sluraplea@reddit
you need to play more Civilization
SlyguyguyslY@reddit
We all knew remote controlled robots would take over warfare. This wasn't even the first step. Soon they will be autonomous.
Ok_Transportation310@reddit
Cat aluminum circle
RenhamRedAxe@reddit
and after that gunpowder... or before that... its confusing cause china used that and then everyone cought up like 200 years later.
luanpesi@reddit
lol imagine die to a fucking redditor controlling a drone.
Stargost_@reddit
Musket.
_sephylon_@reddit
Musket wasn't a problem until it and some other stuff like artillery and mines and machines guns appeared or got too advanced
16th/17th/18th centuries warfare was peak and had muskets
CommunistLlamma@reddit
Suck_Master@reddit
New psyop cat just dropped
Cheehoo@reddit
Holy cats!
Speculosity@reddit
Babe wake up
geofox777@reddit
Somebody make a “babe wake up🔄🐱” cat meme
Hoophy97@reddit
At this rate babe will never get to sleep again
Fleedjitsu@reddit
Yeah, everyone would have been shocked the first time mass archery was used in war, or knight cavalry, or artillery, or muskets, or machineguns or the tank.
Before each of those military innovations, everyone would have assumed they lived in the time of peak warfare. They'd have no comprehension of how war would change.
Braindeadkarthus@reddit
Wasn’t too long ago the first nuclear weapons broke warfare completely too. We even warned the cities first, and the government of Japan basically covered it up, and claimed we were full of it because there’s no way such a weapon existed.
It also broke the meta, being put on everything for a few years, right down to portable jeep mounted launchers for tactical warheads
Matiwapo@reddit
Way to deflect ownership of your own atrocities bro
Braindeadkarthus@reddit
I didn’t say the US didn’t bomb the place, I said that the authorities said it was propaganda, and obviously a fantasy with no basis in reality. Then a miniature sun appeared for an instant a couple days later, in total defiance of morality, the “meta of warfare,” or a care about what the authorities believed on the matter
Matiwapo@reddit
By saying 'we warned them but the govt didn't listen' you are basically saying that it's the Japanese government's fault you nuked their people. Like if Japan had just listened and promptly surrendered you wouldn't have had to annihilate those innocent people.
Do you not see how that is shifting the blame? Even if it wasn't your main point it is still a careless implication.
Personally I just wish Americans would stop making excuses for vaporising all those women and children and just own it and be sorry.
Fleedjitsu@reddit
I think u/Braindeadkarthus is pointing out how unprecedented the atomic bomb was when it was first used. They were responding to my own comment about how generations prior to any major warfare innovation would have been unable to fathom war in any other way.
Before the musket, everyone would have thought that war would always be fought mostly hand-to-hand with knights being the juggernauts of the battlefield. Before the invention of the plane, everyone would have thought war would remain on the seas or on the ground.
Until recently, we all thought future wars would anchor around tanks and not tiny whining death drones. Makes you think of how soldiers might look or how conventional handheld weaponry might change.
Regarding the atomic bomb; Japan would have not expected anyone to suddenly have the ability to wipe an entire city off the map with a single munition. It would have been like one side stating they'll strike down their enemies with the Wrath of God - no one is really going to believe them.
The Americans most likely knew this too, but it's always worth a try as you'll never know when an enemy won't think you're bluffing and will genuinely start panicking over your supposed wonder-weapon.
Braindeadkarthus@reddit
^they’ve got it
Imagine walking outside tomorrow and a piece of paper falls in front of you that said “tomorrow, Russia will move this city to another plane of existence and it will be stranded there with anyone who hasn’t left. If you do not wish for this to happen, leave tonight.”
The US (and pretty much everyone else scientists included) would immediately discredit and dismiss such a possibility.
If it actually happened though, it would be pretty much the same as the atom bomb though, and everything would change as suddenly armor, conventional defenses, and offensive techniques are all instantly obsolete
T_Ijonen@reddit
Stop eating glue
Fleedjitsu@reddit
Yep, you're right. While conventional war does continue, no one really thinks about how tip-toe major powers have gotten. It's all proxy or hit-down wars now.
That in itself has changed warfare as well, since there's fewer instances of "open" war - it's more about skirmishes and guerilla warfare. Simply because of who is fighting who.
ChadWolf98@reddit
Finally some good fucking meme
HelpfulJello5361@reddit
This is the greatest and most unexpected thing I've ever seen on Reddit
BuckfuttersbyII@reddit
Art.
Kitosaki@reddit
A+
TheManos44@reddit
I hear $250 shotguns with birdshot have been very effective against the drones. War evolves
Thin-Sand-2389@reddit
Shitty drones maybe but expensive ones are basically impossible to kill as an average sold
rickroled@reddit
Crossbows didn’t win the test of time, they were too slow to reload and too impractical for the average soldier to use during battle
Thin-Sand-2389@reddit
Beats spending and upkeepting very expensive often rebellious knights
belacscole@reddit
meanwhile nukes:
PeikaFizzy@reddit
People literally forgot that nuclear weapons literally cancer fulll scale warfare.
Hatertraito@reddit
Yeah but they don't exist
Extremelysolid8492@reddit
WW3 would happen very easily in the 50s if it was for fear of nuclear weapons
rektefied@reddit
the good timeline of rssia not existing but being just a land of resources for the rest of the world
Thanag0r@reddit
Just like they did in Ukraine...
Cuddlyaxe@reddit
They cancel full scale warfare between great powers
There are still plenty of wars between parties that do not have nukes. Ukraine-Russia currently, but also Armenia-Azerbaijan for example. Heck just 20 years ago basically half of Africa's countries were having their own great war
Conventional wars between nuclear armed powers is also possible, but just not "full" wars like you said. Pakistan tried to invade India in the Kargil War of 1999 for example but once India expelled Pakistan they didn't invade them back since they didn't want a nuclear exchange.
This is prolly how a China US war over Taiwan would look. Lots of naval warfare and fighting in Taiwan, but the US probably isn't going to land troops in Shanghai or anything
GoodTitrations@reddit
“Ruins warfare”
Yeah, much better to send troops out to be slaughtered and even more civilian casualties.
MarinLlwyd@reddit
wait
why don't we put arrows on drones
Naive-Fold-1374@reddit
because we put tandem warheads from rpgs on them
MarinLlwyd@reddit
bullshit put arrows on the warheads
AmarGwari@reddit
Shotgunners kills drones Drones kills riflemen Riflemen kill Shotgunners
Stone Paped Scissor ahh war
smaxy63@reddit
Do riflemen kill shotgunners? Shotguns is pretty broken irl iirc.
ChadWolf98@reddit
Medium range yeah. Shotguns dont stop working at like 10 feet ala Cod style but on an open field you probably have an advantage with an AR over a pump shotty
smaxy63@reddit
Oh yea shotguns have long range irl but not hundreds of meters long right. I'm under the impression most fights happen at cqb nowadays though.
The_Demolition_Man@reddit
Overrated. Drone casualties are nowhere near old fashioned weapon systems such as artillery or even just rifles.
donnydodo@reddit
Apparently artillery paired with observation drones is 70-80% of casualties.
NetStaIker@reddit
70% of all world war 2 combat casualties were artillery, artillery really is where it’s at
The_Demolition_Man@reddit
Not arguing with you at all here, just adding context since this came up elsewhere too. Aerial observation of artillery has existed since 1915. Drones are a nice improvement to that, but absolutely not "breaking the meta" like the meme is claiming.
A_Blue_Potion@reddit
My ghost would sure be pissed if I died to one compared to an enemy soldier. Nothing like dying to a guy hiding behind a remote control for a modified children's toy.
Naive-Fold-1374@reddit
can't have shit in war
abattlescar@reddit
I just see it as a little mini-game they're playing.
A_Blue_Potion@reddit
I didn't even die to one and this already makes me seethe.
Desert_Aficionado@reddit
Tanks are having a bad time. Even the best tanks are getting taken out by drones.
abattlescar@reddit
I refuse to believe that. As far as I care, that's equivalent propaganda to the Abrams being weak to infantry carried RPGs in Iraq.
The_Demolition_Man@reddit
How many tanks have been taken out by each weapon system?
I suspect youd find a small fraction were lost to drones.
Desert_Aficionado@reddit
Javelins were effective early on, but drones are why the Russians started using Turtle Tanks. I don't know how many are turtle vs regular tho.
I watched the Task and Purpose video on the new M1-A3, and he said something like half the Abrams given to Ukrainians were take out action by Russian drones. Drones appear to be extremely effective against tanks.
The_Demolition_Man@reddit
Tanks have always been vulnerable to top-down or side attacks. Weapons exploiting this have existed for decades basically since the Javelin was fielded. FPV tank drones are basically short range, slow, low power Javelins.
What we're seeing in Ukraine is basically a lack of countermeasures, problems with employment, and doctrinal flaws. It's not really any different than the horrendous tank losses Turkey suffered in Syria or Russia lost in Grozny.
Yes, drones can be lethal to people and tanks, but no, they did not "break the meta" of warfare or whatever.
Jeri_Lee@reddit
Even if one drone took out a tank you made your money’s worth. $100 drone taking out a $10 million tank is a good deal.
The_Demolition_Man@reddit
Correct. That's also true for digging a ditch and waiting for a tank to get stuck in it.
It doesn't mean it's revolutionized warfare or whatever.
Cuddlyaxe@reddit
Casualties don't tell the whole story tbh
Drones+Grenades are much more cost effective than artillery. And perhaps more importantly you can target with them much better. This is useful for taking out stragglers where a strike prolly isn't worth it, but also very useful in taking out machinery
Indeed probably the most useful use of drones is to take out artillery pieces
I'd also bet that there's some sort of psychological effect tbh, watching people's helplessness in the face of the brrrting drone is a different experience. They can get you pretty much anywhere after all, even a fucking trench, and once you hear the noise unless you're properly prepared you're kinda fucked
Finally, as others have mentioned, drones also play a pretty vital role in observational roles
The_Demolition_Man@reddit
Drones are just harassing fire. They have more of a psychological effect than anything. Yes, they do kill soldiers and even vehicles, but they are absolutely not able to replace artillery or conventional anti tank weapons in any fashion. You will absolutely not prepare strong points for assault with drones instead of artillery.
Filibut@reddit
crossbows were so op they had to invent guns
fuck crossbows overrated pieces of wood
ChadWolf98@reddit
You mad your club meta got nerfed
josephumi@reddit
The concept of throwing ruined combat between humans and the rest of the animals
ChadWolf98@reddit
Ppl are sleeping on spears. That invention single handedly ruined the meta for animals. And its just a sharp stick basically.
SaltIsMySugar@reddit
I thought that's what warfare was, figuring out how to kill the opposition in the most efficient way possible. Drones are the thing for now, later it'll be some new horrifying tech.
lewd-boy-o@reddit
Just because the meta changes doesn't mean the game is dying. Though gotta admit the nukes were way too OP
Educational_Grape962@reddit
You gotta get 25 kills without dying, how is it op?
pwillia7@reddit
can't believe they just left in the ~10 player 7 minute game ending mechanic instead of fully banning/nerfing it
jack_not_harkness@reddit
Anon is just pissed that he can’t afford a military drone to spy on his sister and kill the neighbours dog.
lachiebois@reddit
Ukraine is pretty much any weapons contractors wet dream, their country doesn’t have to send any men over. But they can test all their new and old toys and gadgets to see how they compete against an actual military. Not a bunch of dudes in the desert with AKs.
Pisses the think tanks off bc 70% of their doctrines have now become obsolete. But other than that it’s just a great learning experience.
For everyone not fighting.
ElliJaX@reddit
There's already plenty of counters to drones (at least with what I saw/installed/used in the Navy) that are actively used, the Houthis have been repeatedly trying to get a drone near any ship but they keep getting "shot" down. War is about evolving and being able to tell the adversary "parry this you filthy casual". Also I'd love to see them try to take on a CWIS
uber_damage@reddit
Git wrecked noobs
PM_ME_GOOD_SUBS@reddit
Well then, we have a solution. Pope should ban drones.
Coakis@reddit
I mean it's not like there were predictions that drone warfare wouldn't be become a thing.
Militaries were using them prior to the 90s, and it was only a matter of time someone would strap a weapon to it.
PussyIgnorer@reddit
But now we get cool shit like drone swarms.