←back to thread

182 points _tk_ | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.785s | source
Show context
originalvichy ◴[] No.44386840[source]
FPV drones for combat are a hot flash in the pan. They have had a major effect for now, but naturally as these countermeasures evolve, so weakens their effect.

I keep telling people that the terrain and the strategies that Russians use is the primary reason for the effectiveness. Mortars and artillery already handle the same requirements as the author says. The reason they are effective in 2024-25 is that the drip-drip-drip of single soldiers running over vast fields / unarmoed vehicles driving over known routes is the only way Russians make progress. For a moving target they are great, but multiple moving targets would get shredded by competent artillery anyway.

Most nations don’t have flat open fields where signals can reach far away drones unimpeded by line of sight for tx/rx.

By far the best use of drones still is as battlefield recon/fire correction to adjust existing artillery/mortar capabilities.

Source: I’m one such drone hobbyist and I’ve watched way too much footage from the front. None of what i’m writing is in absolute terms. I just don’t see the same way as commenters in the public who think they are a checkmate for any combat situation. The incompetence of the Russian forces caught everyone by surprise, but they have learned. My country’s border with Russia is heavily forested and not as flat as Russia. The drones are not able to go through the canopy. Infrared recon is a way better choice than FPV suicide drones.

replies(10): >>44386890 #>>44386993 #>>44387435 #>>44387754 #>>44388143 #>>44388161 #>>44388299 #>>44391144 #>>44391947 #>>44394715 #
alphabettsy ◴[] No.44386890[source]
> Most nations don’t have flat open fields where signals can reach far away drones unimpeded by line of sight for tx/rx.

Citation needed.

replies(2): >>44387020 #>>44387933 #
speeder ◴[] No.44387933[source]
I saw some fascinating videos explaining that the terrain caused the war in first place.

The huge border between Russia and Ukraine is completely flat grassland. This means that to Russia, Ukraine joining NATO is an unacceptable risk because that border is impossible to defend against NATO tank invasion, and the flatness go all the way to Moscow.

A lot of people on internet keep poking fun at Russia inadequate tanks as "proof" Russia is stupid for invading with such crappy gear. Russia is very well aware of this, and is why they invaded in first place, they know of Ukraine joins NATO any military exchange with NATO (like what happened between Iran and Israel) would need to immediately become nuclear because their existing army can't defend the huge open flat terrain against NATO equipment.

replies(7): >>44388202 #>>44388204 #>>44388806 #>>44388900 #>>44389655 #>>44389726 #>>44391040 #
kjkjadksj ◴[] No.44388900[source]
Well if they didn’t bother their neighbors they wouldn’t have to worry about NATO. Seems like a self imposed wound there.
replies(1): >>44390416 #
1. speeder ◴[] No.44390416[source]
Whenever I see this reasoning, I wonder how many people really believe not a single NATO country will ever elect a nutjob that might just decide to invade someone for a bullshit reason.

For example, hypothetically, what is the chance for a major NATO country will never have a president that might decide to bomb another country out of the blue, because that country according to said president, has weapons of mass destruction, despite the fact the same country intelligence said the target DOESN'T have such weapons? This will never happen right?

replies(2): >>44390521 #>>44392632 #
2. mopsi ◴[] No.44390521[source]
I recommend looking up European military readiness levels before diving too deep into fantasies. Who is supposed to invade Russia? Latvia, with its tank army of exactly zero tanks? Or a major country like Germany, with its barely 100 operational tanks and enough artillery ammunition for just two days?

Even in Russia, only complete loonies treats this as a plausible scenario. That's why you can see bunkers and anti-tank ditches and defensive lines being built on the European side of the Russian border, and nothing of this sort on the Russian side. They don't even have a basic chain-link fence. Mushroomers sometimes get lost and just walk into Russia.

replies(1): >>44392605 #
3. palata ◴[] No.44392605[source]
> before diving too deep into fantasies

You do realise that the parent was actually making a historical reference? "Weapons of mass destruction"... doesn't that ring a bell?

4. rcxdude ◴[] No.44392632[source]
So? Nothing in NATO brings the rest of the alliance along for the ride in that case. The core agreement is defensive, not offensive, and historically NATO has not at all been unified on attacks on other countries.