←back to thread

I fought in Ukraine and here's why FPV drones kind of suck

(warontherocks.com)
188 points _tk_ | 1 comments | 26 Jun 25 10:11 UTC | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
tim333 ◴[26 Jun 25 18:42 UTC] No.44390105[source]▶
They may kind of suck but even so they are still transforming the war in Ukraine. A month or so ago FPV drones took out much of Russia's nuclear bomber fleet (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44150789), something like 80% of battlefield casualties are due to drones, neither side pretty much can use tanks because they get taken out by drones. It's a huge change in war fighting.

One stat: "In May alone, Ukrainian drones destroyed over 89,000 Russian targets" https://www.newsweek.com/robert-brovdi-ukraine-russia-war-dr...

They've recently promoted the 'Birds of Madyar' guy to run the newly formed Unmanned Systems Forces and are moving to a unified drone line defence the whole way along the frontline. Update on that: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2073811/russia-army-ukr...

Also re drones not having the effect of artillery, fair enough but Ukraine has been using FPV drones to destroy Russia's artillery. Here's footage of one of it's most modern being taken out https://youtu.be/DMOjOJnAd8A?t=161 It's kind of asymmetric - the artillery can't similarly take out the drones because they are too small and replaceable.

replies(2): >>44391192 #>>44394961 #
1. mike_hearn ◴[27 Jun 25 08:33 UTC] No.44394961[source]▶
The article addresses this in the first few paragraphs. The author argues that whilst the 80% may or may not be accurate, they're using a definition of drone that encompasses many kinds of machine and not just FPV drones which is what he's talking about. He also says the number is highly misleading because most of his FPV drone missions were double-taps where the target had already been taken out by more traditional military assets, and that commanders used drones mostly because they were given them rather than because that was the best military strategy.