NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Josh]

3 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

  Exactly opposite, even hesitant actions taken by pro-Western Gov of RF back in 2014 were exgtremely beneficial for Russia (but yes, they were the start of the end of current rulling elite of RF - that is why they were so reluctant to act).

I'm sorry but pumping assets to West in exchange for promises that would never be payed (and actual kickbacks for elite like luxury goods, motorboats, palaces on Med or in London etc.) is not "economy", it is looting. Yes this "economy" of looting started to collapse in 2014 (actually, earlier - see "Magnitsky act" etc) but i do not see in what way it is harmful for REAL economy.

    At the same time, Eastern Europe is useless for Russia (and even for Eastern Europe itself). Time when Europe was "the World" and access to it (via Baltic and Eastern Europe) was access to progress is long since gone.

The actual state of the Russian economy now, for everyone, is worse than pre 2022. It perhaps is not nearly as dire as western governments would hope, but it is starting to get rather negative. And the long terms costs in terms of investment, inflation, brain drain, infrastructure neglect, sovereign wealth depletion, etc cannot even yet be calculated: there is a massive economic price for this war and clearly Russian leadership is perfectly willing to ignore that cost.

Any deterrent calculations that were based on future Russian economic well being obviously have no basis in reality. Again, this why NATO gained two members.

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

The actual state of the Russian economy now, for everyone, is worse than pre 2022.

Pre 2022, there was no Russian economy at all - it was colonial institurion to extract Russian wealth to West. Now the situation is changing, wery slowly, in "two steps forward-one step back" manner and with lots of pain (not surprising after 30+ years of working for outside powers).

2 hours ago, Josh said:

It perhaps is not nearly as dire as western governments would hope, but it is starting to get rather negative.

Just stop and think about what you have just said. After years of "bone-crushing sanctions" by "all civilized world", RF economy, officially labeled as "economic dwarf", "gas station maskarading as country", declared "in taters" etc. is now only "starting to get rather negative"? Meanwhile in Germany, former industrial powerhouse of EU

  German Deindustrialization Is A Wake-Up Call For U.S. Manufacturers

German Deindustrialization Is A Wake-Up Call For U.S. Manufacturers
ByJim Vinoski,Contributor. An author, speaker, and executive, I explore the world's industries.

Feb 29, 2024, 08:02am ESTMar 04, 2024, 01:02pm EST

© 2024 Bloomberg Finance LP
For generations, Germany has been a manufacturing powerhouse. The country was in the vanguard of the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century, establishing dominant positions in electrical components manufacturing and chemical production. Devastated by WWII, with the help of the Marshall plan the country quickly rebuilt its manufacturing base afterwards. It remained a top exporter of manufactured goods even as first Japan then China rose to become major exporters as well. The country has long enjoyed a well-deserved reputation for engineering prowess and high quality that was demonstrated across its huge manufacturing base.

Now that picture is changing rapidly, as German industry increasingly struggles to compete on the world stage. Particularly hard hit are its mighty chemical and heavy industry sectors, which are now in rapid decline. One of the main drivers is policies that have made energy costs skyrocket, and there Germany serves as a canary in the coal mine for other leading industrial nations.

Germany’s BASF is a bellwether for the state of the country’s industry. The company has long been representative of Germany’s manufacturing prowess, having grown since its founding in 1865 to encompass nearly 400 production sites in about 80 countries, while maintaining its headquarters and a sprawling multi-unit production facility in Ludwigshafen, Germany, which houses 200 separate plants and about 39,000 employees. But that site is where serious problems have arisen in the past two years. The company has permanently closed one of two ammonia units there and has idled other several other units as well because they’re no longer competitive, moves that cost 2,500 positions in Ludwigshafen. BASF’s sales were down 21.1% in 2023, and adjusted earnings fell 60.1%. In the last week, BASF announced a further $1.1 billion in cost savings efforts at Ludiwigshafen, which will lead to another round of job losses.

BASF has not been alone in cutting costs and jobs. German seamless pipe producer Vallourec closed its plants in Düsseldorf and Mülheim in late 2023. U.S.-based Trinseo closed a styrene facility in Böhlen and a polycarbonate line in Stade, causing fellow American firm Olin to shut down related methylene chloride and chloroform production in Stade as well, all due to high production costs. Germany’s Allnex closed its industrial coatings plant in Hamburg last year. And just days ago, Meyer Burger Technology AG announced it was discontinuing production of solar modules in Freiburg.

Many factors contribute to the skyrocketing costs in Germany for electricity and natural gas: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resultant sanctions, as well as the destruction of Nord Stream pipelines, for example. But one of the biggest drivers has been Germany’s net-zero energy policy, Energiewende, and the country’s rapid move to variable renewables, wind and solar, for electric generation. They necessarily require backup generating capacity, since the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine all the time. That’s usually provided by fossil fuel or nuclear power plants, but Germany passed legislation in 2019 to shut down all its coal plants by 2038, and last year the country shuttered the last three plants in its once-formidable nuclear fleet (in 1990 nuclear provided a quarter of Germany’s electricity). As a result, the country has been forced to import electricity and natural gas at substantially higher prices. Germany has recently been delaying planned closures of coal plants and is now also planning new gas plants as well, but the damage has been done. Germany now has some of the highest prices for electricity in the world.

 

How with performance like that you pretend to oppose China, economy 10-40 times (depending on metrics used) bigger?

[Roman Alymov]

14 hours ago, Josh said:

. And the long terms costs in terms of investment,

What investment? It was Russia who was net-investor into West, not vice versa. Billions of RF assets arrested now in Western banks were de-facto Russian investment (in form of free NG&oil mostly, as this assets were not to come back anyway).

14 hours ago, Josh said:

, inflation,

Look at NATO member Turkey inflation, we do not have anything close to it. Still, Turkey is doing remarkably well.

14 hours ago, Josh said:

brain drain,

 What brain drain? I see high-school graduates now flocking to hightech and engeneering courses in Russian univercities (after decades of top dream was to become office dweller in Western company or leave the country), i see kids willingly joining trade schools (something forgotten even in late Soviet time, when blue collar professions were stigmatized). Now both blue-collar and engineers are best paid jobs (not only in mil industry). What brain drain you mean?

14 hours ago, Josh said:

 sovereign wealth depletion,

What sivereign wealth? You mean unpayable debt warrants left by Western companies for Rus oil and gas consumed years ago? 

    As for me, we here in Russia are interested in having zero trade proficit, as "foreign reserves" are just another form of sponsoring other people's economy. Even now we have proficit in foreign trade:

"Russia's foreign trade surplus fell by 41.3% in August — CBR

It amounted to $7.5 billion against $12.7 billion in July. Compared to the same period last year, the indicator decreased by 13.7%. Russian imports decreased to $24.1 billion in August, while exports fell to $31.5 billion." ( https://t.me/suverenka/16390 )

   Practical meaning of this surplus is we are giving away to other countries almost  two Kerch bridges worth ( ~$4bln) in goods and services EVERY MONTH. Are we so righ to make such gifts? What is the sake of sponsoring ither countries?

 

Edited October 14, 2025 by Roman Alymov

[Martineleca]

Russian defense industry is implementing long term efforts to increase T-90 tank production

https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-11-2025/

"The documents, which ISW reviewed but cannot independently verify, indicate that UVZ aims to surge tank production beginning in 2027. The documents indicate that UVZ estimates a projected 2026 output of 10 T-90M2 tanks and intends to produce a peak of 428 T-90M and T-90M2 tanks in 2028."

[Martineleca]

7 hours ago, Martineleca said:

"The documents, which ISW reviewed but cannot independently verify, indicate that UVZ aims to surge tank production beginning in 2027. The documents indicate that UVZ estimates a projected 2026 output of 10 T-90M2 tanks and intends to produce a peak of 428 T-90M and T-90M2 tanks in 2028."

Wonder how that would compare to Soviet projections for the build rate of advanced models like the T-95 or T-80UM2, I know they had years of over two thousand tanks churned out, but a lot of them were also made for export which currently is not the case...

[seahawk]

428 is not enough for the coming war with NATO. They need to put another tank into production. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

T34M2, its time has come!

[seahawk]

More like T72 or something. But numbers will matter when the next phase of the war against NATO starts. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

The British Army believes, and I kinda believe them, that all the conventional equipment we now employ (with the exception of artillery and air defence) is, post the drone revolution, only going to be somewhat useful in the aftermath of the near collapse of the enemy. Basically the narrative is to hold everything in reserve till the enemies capabilities are degraded near the point of collapse, then employ the 'legacy' equipment to roll over them. Pretty much how we used tanks, aircraft, cavalry, in 1918 after the German Army started to collapse. Or, looked at another way, that the Soviet tank doctrine so laboured over for years, finally only started to work when the German Army was coming unglued.

I think, in perhaps one of the few occasions when the British Army has been doctrinally right since the 1920's, they are completely correct. I dont think much of this stuff is still as useful as we think it is. That doesnt mean its obsolete, and it doesnt mean we shouldnt plan for contingencies we may turn out wrong. But the main focus of military investment? Not really, no. Short of providing a near drone free environment (for which we simply do not have the technology to generate as yet, if ever) mechanized forces are going to be as vulnerable as cavalry horses were to machine guns.

Of course if the Russians want to prepare for the next Prokorovka, im happy to encourage them. You would think at this late date, 3 years after launching the big tank drive on Kyiv, they might have learned the world changed, but perhaps not.

Edited October 14, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[Martineleca]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Short of providing a near drone free environment (for which we simply do not have the technology to generate as yet, if ever)

The automatic AA cannon atop the MBT 70 tank was certainly ahead of its time, though it would be quite useful in the present day, maybe double up just in case.

[Ssnake]

Except it wasn't very automated - a hand-operated autocannon, and no airburst option. In conclusion, neither ahead of it's time nor particularly promising in a drone environment.

[Josh]

It should not be hard to tack a 30mm medium velocity RWS onto an MBT now. IFVs can use their primary armament. I think the difficult part is initial detection, ideally passive, and then providing range information to the FCS. The  CB latter might require an independent laser RF on the RWS, or else a radar equipped APS also linked to the FCS. AFV electronics are going to more resemble the integrated combat suites of ship defenses.

[Stuart Galbraith]

If you stack an anti drone gun on a tank, you are giving a crew with already a lot to do something else. Its one thing to track and engage targets on the ground, if you are making it into an SPAA, you are already degrading its ability to do its primary job, defeat the enemy by fire, manoeuvre and shock effect by distracting the crew. Furthermore, if you are mounting another gun on it, then you need another ammunition supply in a vehicle with a finite amount of internal space. Its a law of diminishing returns. 

Truth be told, if it is ever viable to shoot down drones, it makes far more sense to put all this stuff on another chassis and send that with a tank platoon.. I dont think a tank should be doing anything but lugging around passive protection, such as jammers.

Or, and here is the radical idea, engaging other tanks by indirect means, well out of reach of any drones at all. Good luck trying to convince anyone its even necessary when you have SPG's.

 

[urbanoid]

You can make it external and have it operating autonomously (as an option), the way CIWS does. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

You can make it external and have it operating autonomously (as an option), the way CIWS does. 

True, and if you get a drones operating,  you piss through the ammunition, so the commander or the loader has to exit the vehicle, and suddenly by popping the hatch, you make it an easy target for a drone (As they will also have to be doing for the APS system) And what is more, you have to ensure the tank doesnt have a cage over the top, which again makes it vulnerable in any circumstance that a hatch is opened. Far better to put all that stuff on a support chassis, than encumber the upper deck of the tank, which needs all the proteciton it can get in that area.

As for autonomous, Challenger 3 right now is costing 7.9 million dollars per copy. As the yanks found with MBT70, we can put so much money into a tank, that it becomes cost prohibitive to procure them in more than trace amounts. Something we British found when it was cost prohibitive to replace Chieftain in one go.  We are approaching a tipping point where we may be able to achieve  similar tactical effects with systems that are vastly cheaper. And if we can do that, why make tanks more expensive, when you already have a cheaper system, drones controlled by fibre optics, already to hand?

 

 

[Jaroslav]

 

[urbanoid]

16 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

True, and if you get a drones operating,  you piss through the ammunition, so the commander or the loader has to exit the vehicle, and suddenly by popping the hatch, you make it an easy target for a drone (As they will also have to be doing for the APS system) And what is more, you have to ensure the tank doesnt have a cage over the top, which again makes it vulnerable in any circumstance that a hatch is opened. Far better to put all that stuff on a support chassis, than encumber the upper deck of the tank, which needs all the proteciton it can get in that area.

As for autonomous, Challenger 3 right now is costing 7.9 million dollars per copy. As the yanks found with MBT70, we can put so much money into a tank, that it becomes cost prohibitive to procure them in more than trace amounts. Something we British found when it was cost prohibitive to replace Chieftain in one go.  We are approaching a tipping point where we may be able to achieve  similar tactical effects with systems that are vastly cheaper. And if we can do that, why make tanks more expensive, when you already have a cheaper system, drones controlled by fibre optics, already to hand?

Apples and oranges, drones controlled by fiber optics are meant to destroy tanks, not replace them in their role. The drones won't advance your lines and won't hold them, for that you still need armored and mechanized forces.

We're talking about the defense from enemy drones and yes, every tank should have some autonomous anti-drone capability, on top of separate dedicated AD that can, among other things, destroy enemy drones. That is unless you want to fight your wars as the Ukrainians and Russians fight theirs atm.

It was only 'cost prohibitive' because you lot were pinching pennies, both then and now. 

[Josh]

The XM-1 demo GDLS proposed already had a 30mm. All I am proposing is using a 360 EO/IR sensor suite and some microphones to warn the crew and cue the canon. It could be optional fully or semi automatic. Giving the crew one more thing to do is better than losing the crew, and I suspect 360 viewing and auto target recognition are prerequisites for any new AFV anyway. Adding a fire control system that can engage a loitering munition with some time fused ammunition hardly seems like a great expense, and the same set of systems could be used for other pop up soft targets like ATGM teams.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Apples and oranges, drones controlled by fiber optics are meant to destroy tanks, not replace them in their role. The drones won't advance your lines and won't hold them, for that you still need armored and mechanized forces.

We're talking about the defense from enemy drones and yes, every tank should have some autonomous anti-drone capability, on top of separate dedicated AD that can, among other things, destroy enemy drones. That is unless you want to fight your wars as the Ukrainians and Russians fight theirs atm.

It was only 'cost prohibitive' because you lot were pinching pennies, both then and now. 

Alright, well what is the purposes a tank? To close with the enemy to destroy him with fire. You could do that with a mortar if its appropriately placed, still more so with a low flying drone carrying mortar bombs, not risk the crew, or a valuable platform doing it. Boom. No need for a tank. 

There was a reasonably good Brad Pitt movie called 'Moneyball' I watched several years ago, a true story before anyone asks.  Baseball team loses its star player, so they figure out if they buy x amount of low ranking baseball players for the same money that can achieve the same batting average, they can achieve the same points effect. And so it proved. If you can achieve enough drones to replicate what a tank does offensively, then for offensive operationsm the tank is going to price itself out the market. That doesnt follow of course that it wont survive in service for defensive operations.

And no, Its not about penny pinching. Its whether you can achieve tactical effects of a similar or equal kind for less money, or greater for the same money. Its that simple. And these are huge logistic costs when you count how much fuel you need to push an armoured brigade around. One might sneer at cost, particularly when you are flush with readies, but thats driven  combat evolution, all the way back to the guy that picked up a bone and brained his neighbour instead of using his fists.  

I think we are ALL going to be fighting our wars as the Ukrainians and Russians fight theirs. Thats the problem, and that this is now the second war where drones have played a majority role and armoured forces a secondary role at best, its really about time we started thinking in terms of drones swarms instead of mechanised forces and recognise, combat has changed. Temporarily perhaps, but cynical me thinks its not going to work out like that.

Personally I dont like it, I like tanks, and I find what we now have is messy and ephemeral and near incomprehensible. But I also wish carriers never displaced Battleships, and that turned out a vain hope also. The technology and battlespace economics decides whats useful, not what we would wish, or we would never have abandoned Cavalry horses for those smelly messy tanks in the first place.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely, and I very much hope I am. But its really time we looked into his dreadful future when we have tactical paralysis, because looking at Ukraine,  I  think thats well underway. When the Ukrainians are screaming about a 1.6km advance, you know we all have a problem that isnt going to be solved by throwing lots of armoured vehicles at it.

 

Edited October 14, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 minutes ago, Josh said:

The XM-1 demo GDLS proposed already had a 30mm. All I am proposing is using a 360 EO/IR sensor suite and some microphones to warn the crew and cue the canon. It could be optional fully or semi automatic. Giving the crew one more thing to do is better than losing the crew, and I suspect 360 viewing and auto target recognition are prerequisites for any new AFV anyway. Adding a fire control system that can engage a loitering munition with some time fused ammunition hardly seems like a great expense, and the same set of systems could be used for other pop up soft targets like ATGM teams.

What would I rather have, a gun that could shoot down drones, or a cope cage? Cope cage please. It cant jam, it wont run out of ammunition, and It means I can concentrate on the land battle and let someone else deal with the 180 degrees from one horizon to the other. 

if you want an SPAA, then build one. Converting every platform into an anti drone platform is just going to drive up consumption of ammunition, and for me, uncertain reliablity when they are approaching in close terrain, such as towns or forests.

 

[Josh]

31 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

What would I rather have, a gun that could shoot down drones, or a cope cage? Cope cage please. It cant jam, it wont run out of ammunition, and It means I can concentrate on the land battle and let someone else deal with the 180 degrees from one horizon to the other.

has anyone demonstrated a cope cage that enables full mobility of the vehicle and full field of action of the primary armament? 

 

31 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

if you want an SPAA, then build one. Converting every platform into an anti drone platform is just going to drive up consumption of ammunition, and for me, uncertain reliablity when they are approaching in close terrain, such as towns or forests.

This is not a SPAA. This is a short ranged, medium velocity canon system for slow moving air and ground targets. Like I said, most AFV demonstrators already include a RWS or an auto canon as primary armament; all I’m proposing is enough of an FCS to use it against the lowest tier/speed threats.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 This isn't an RWS, folks want a self aiming weapon system that can engage any slow moving target across 180 degrees of the horizon, rapidly detect and engage the target, and do it all with a system thats cheap to procure, takes up a minimum of space, is externally mounted, and is reliable. Which is a tall order.

Or you can have an operator that scans the sky full time, except when he is loading the gun, reloading the MG, tuning the radios or making the tea. Doing his job as a loader in other words. Christ knows what you do on a tank like the Leclerc with 3 crewman.

If you are going to saddle the tank with what is effectively anothet turret, then you are going to hobble its effectiveness in its primary role. Remember it was once fashionable to give tank commanders their own mg, till folks figured out whilst he was playing Audie Murphy, he wasn't fulfilling his primary role, commanding the tank.

 

Edited October 14, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[Josh]

I admit such a system is unworkable if AI cannot handle target recognition of UAVs. But if there’s a rifle mounted sight that can accomplish this, it seems like mounting it in an AFV is workable. Again, a secondary canon armament already seems like a standard feature on most western MBT proposals/demos, as is a 360 EO/IR. I believe even the Russians are going in that direction. Having some kind of system that can calculate a fire solution and yes/no does not seem like a big expense compared to an APS. The main hangup I can think of is range data for time fusing, but I would think an LRF on the remote mount could fix that; engagement ranges would be in the dozens to low hundreds of meters anyway.

[urbanoid]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Alright, well what is the purposes a tank? To close with the enemy to destroy him with fire. You could do that with a mortar if its appropriately placed, still more so with a low flying drone carrying mortar bombs, not risk the crew, or a valuable platform doing it. Boom. No need for a tank. 

There was a reasonably good Brad Pitt movie called 'Moneyball' I watched several years ago, a true story before anyone asks.  Baseball team loses its star player, so they figure out if they buy x amount of low ranking baseball players for the same money that can achieve the same batting average, they can achieve the same points effect. And so it proved. If you can achieve enough drones to replicate what a tank does offensively, then for offensive operationsm the tank is going to price itself out the market. That doesnt follow of course that it wont survive in service for defensive operations.

And no, Its not about penny pinching. Its whether you can achieve tactical effects of a similar or equal kind for less money, or greater for the same money. Its that simple. And these are huge logistic costs when you count how much fuel you need to push an armoured brigade around. One might sneer at cost, particularly when you are flush with readies, but thats driven  combat evolution, all the way back to the guy that picked up a bone and brained his neighbour instead of using his fists.  

I think we are ALL going to be fighting our wars as the Ukrainians and Russians fight theirs. Thats the problem, and that this is now the second war where drones have played a majority role and armoured forces a secondary role at best, its really about time we started thinking in terms of drones swarms instead of mechanised forces and recognise, combat has changed. Temporarily perhaps, but cynical me thinks its not going to work out like that.

Personally I dont like it, I like tanks, and I find what we now have is messy and ephemeral and near incomprehensible. But I also wish carriers never displaced Battleships, and that turned out a vain hope also. The technology and battlespace economics decides whats useful, not what we would wish, or we would never have abandoned Cavalry horses for those smelly messy tanks in the first place.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely, and I very much hope I am. But its really time we looked into his dreadful future when we have tactical paralysis, because looking at Ukraine,  I  think thats well underway. When the Ukrainians are screaming about a 1.6km advance, you know we all have a problem that isnt going to be solved by throwing lots of armoured vehicles at it.

NATO has something that neither Russia nor Ukraine has - actually capable air force. 

Out there in the Middle East there is a small but serious country which has shown the capabilities of modern airpower quite recently, humiliating a country with a military that is largely a techbro's dream - drones and missiles.

The very same small country successfully dealt with drones, including those supplied to that other state's proxies and also invested in the APS early, which allows them to use tanks and other AFVs even in urban combat, with relatively small losses.

Being serious makes all the difference. 

The necessity of anti-drone measures is really nothing unexpected, it's the same thing as the APS in modern tanks due to the effectiveness of modern ATGMs.

Since you mentioned battleships... well before being retired the battleships and many other types of ships became basically floating AA platforms due to the similar nature of the threat in the Pacific, only those aircraft had a meat filler. That's the same reason I want Western warships to have serious air defense suite, even the frigates which we already discussed. 

Defeat the drones and missiles and you break the stalemate, then you don't have to fight like the Russians and the Ukrainians do. And it better work, because our societies probably don't have the stomach to fight like they do. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

29 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

NATO has something that neither Russia nor Ukraine has - actually capable air force. 

Out there in the Middle East there is a small but serious country which has shown the capabilities of modern airpower quite recently, humiliating a country with a military that is largely a techbro's dream - drones and missiles.

The very same small country successfully dealt with drones, including those supplied to that other state's proxies and also invested in the APS early, which allows them to use tanks and other AFVs even in urban combat, with relatively small losses.

Being serious makes all the difference. 

The necessity of anti-drone measures is really nothing unexpected, it's the same thing as the APS in modern tanks due to the effectiveness of modern ATGMs.

Since you mentioned battleships... well before being retired the battleships and many other types of ships became basically floating AA platforms due to the similar nature of the threat in the Pacific, only those aircraft had a meat filler. That's the same reason I want Western warships to have serious air defense suite, even the frigates which we already discussed. 

Defeat the drones and missiles and you break the stalemate, then you don't have to fight like the Russians and the Ukrainians do. And it better work, because our societies probably don't have the stomach to fight like they do. 

Which does nothing for the low altitude battlespace, as both the Russian nor Ukrainian forces have been able to impose control of drones in 3 years of war. Even the much bigger shaheeds can still get through by force of numbers. And does it really commend expending an expensive amraam on a cheap drone anyway? Even a lost drone is a win, with the small weapons stockpiles across the west.

And if you are Russia, doesn't that commend moving away from a historical type mechanised force which it was developed to beat, towards a more decentralised, cheap, highly dispersed drone force? Not least because they burned through most of those legacy forces, and their ability to replace it is severely limited.

Yes, break the drone stalemate you can use mechanised forces, at the end of a long and protracted drone campaign. But that historical model is eerily similar to WW1 cavalry horses. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does give strong indications. 

I dont like thinking this, anymore than I like Darwinism. But it has its own internal logic, and its foolhardy to ignore it.