War in Ukraine, technical and military aspects only

[Roman Alymov]

Pro-Rus view on current frontline situation

"Movement is life. This axiom has taken on new colors on SVO. A year ago, it was possible to drop into Novogrodovka on a motorcycle in one day and leave before sunset. Now this scenario resembles a Hollywood blockbuster about tough guys. In real life, the brave and daring move from one hiding place to another. You can walk ten kilometers for a week. 

There are more and more drones, and  less and less foliage. You can only hide underground. This situation greatly changes the usual understanding of military operations. Famous instructors in tactical medicine force students to carry heavy dummies for kilometers and at the same time shoot blanks over their heads. It's good training, but it's completely different on the battlefield. 

There is no hope of evacuation in the most dangerous areas. If you are wounded, the only way to survive is to find shelter and wait for the front to advance. Four healthy people will not be sent to take care of one wounded person. Firstly, because more than two people nearby is a "fat target." And secondly, it is simply impossible to escape from a drone with such a load. 

Shooting battles are becoming less frequent. If the enemy is discovered, it will be destroyed by artillery and drones. Now reaching the stronghold/basement is already a victory. That's because it's more dangerous to get there than to engage in a shooting battle.   

We are moving towards drone wars at full speed. The man has reached the limit of his physical abilities. The body cannot be divided into two parts without consequences. The man will not become smaller and more maneuverable. Our only hope is for the development of unmanned technologies. Only they will ensure progress." https://t.me/ghost_of_novorossia/37534

[ink]

Absolutely fascinating where this was has gone, and how quickly.

Wonder what the next development will be.

[Roman Alymov]

21 minutes ago, ink said:

Absolutely fascinating where this was has gone, and how quickly.

That is not surprising as it is the war on the ruins of industrial and mil-tech superpower where from 30 to 50% of population got univercity degrees (mostly in all sorts of engenweering), with easy access to most modern components (mass produced in China at affordable price).

[Roman Alymov]

Reportage about pro-Rus fromtline AD unit. What is interesting:

1) Improvised "air defence attack drones" units are created under the leaderahip of regular SAM officers, with personnel collected from whatever source possible, including former stormtroopers after injuries

2) The hardware used is mostly improvised or crowdfunded (for example, PKT tripod is crowdfunded by one of volunteer support groups  - it is not sayed in the video, but it is well known group so it is easy to see)

3) First time i see the price of THOR missile openly published - RUR3mln (USD37500 by current exchange rate). Price of DIY interceptor drone is said to be RUR30K (USD375) + RUR1K for remote detonator. For comparison (from other sources) each long-range drone produced by former Antonov plant in Kiev is USD200K

https://t.me/sashakots/57057

 

[Roman Alymov]

First video i see of fiberFPV used against flying target relatively high in the air https://t.me/boris_rozhin/183922

    Practical implications are massive: now it is possible for every univercity student on the globe to make cheap ( ~USD500) tool out of AliExpress components that will allow to take out slow low-flying targets like howering helicopters or planes during take off or landing. No need for explosives: kinetic energy is enough to inflict damage, potentially lethal. No way to detect the very presence, not to mention suppress the control of the drone by EW means before impact.....

    So we see another step to West loosing its air dominance. No more helicopter evacuation of wounded from the battlefield ( so good bye "Golden hour"), no more "Green zones", no more safe airbases in places like A-stan, no more cheap and safe tourism to countries whis endemic extremism/civil war (like Egypt). 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, ink said:

Absolutely fascinating where this was has gone, and how quickly.

Wonder what the next development will be.

Well, since you ask.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/32032/32032-h/32032-h.htm

[MiGG0]

13 hours ago, ink said:

Absolutely fascinating where this was has gone, and how quickly.

Wonder what the next development will be.

More and more different types of drones for different tasks. Humans are only needed to certain tasks where drones for reason or other cannot be used. Most humans will be just differnt types of drone operators/mechanics. "West" is totally behind of this reality. Most still beleive that traditional mass armored attacks would work, etc.

If you are designing anything manned expect troop carrier, which purpose is to carry those few troops that are still needed, you are behind the cycle. Now you still can use existing desings as stop gap, but any new desing should be done "drone" first mentality.

Edited October 20, 2025 by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think its more complicated than that. The West prefers right now to put all its production capacity behind Ukraine. When the war ends, and the technology freezes for a while, then we will see a lot more drone update in Western Armies. There is already substantial investment in SP Guns and rocket artillery for example, whcih had all but gone out of style in the west for decades. In short, we are already changing, the only question is whether its going to be fast enough.

[MiGG0]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think its more complicated than that. The West prefers right now to put all its production capacity behind Ukraine. When the war ends, and the technology freezes for a while, then we will see a lot more drone update in Western Armies. There is already substantial investment in SP Guns and rocket artillery for example, whcih had all but gone out of style in the west for decades. In short, we are already changing, the only question is whether its going to be fast enough.

No disagreement here, except that West could desing new "drones" and new OOB (and they should) regardless what thay are mass producing now. They dont see the need as they still dont "believe it" what is happenging in UKR. 

Edited October 20, 2025 by MiGG0

[Roman Alymov]

Another "barn-tank" version https://t.me/milinfolive/158822

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

No disagreement here, except that West could desing new "drones" and new OOB (and they should) regardless what thay are mass producing now. They dont see the need as they still dont "believe it" what is happenging in UKR. 

Well, its a chicken and egg syndrome. Do you change the OOB before getting the drones, in which case its going to be completely useless in a war, or keep as much as you can to existing orbat, and then experiment with, and fade in drones as you gain awareness in their use? I think the latter personally.

To be fair to the Americans, they are doing just that. Im reading of them experimenting with drones at Fort Irwin, which is probably the right place to start. 

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/6/3/just-in-kamikaze-drone-threat-putting-air-defense-back-in-army-maneuver-formations

[MiGG0]

23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well, its a chicken and egg syndrome. Do you change the OOB before getting the drones, in which case its going to be completely useless in a war, or keep as much as you can to existing orbat, and then experiment with, and fade in drones as you gain awareness in their use? I think the latter personally.

To be fair to the Americans, they are doing just that. Im reading of them experimenting with drones at Fort Irwin, which is probably the right place to start. 

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/6/3/just-in-kamikaze-drone-threat-putting-air-defense-back-in-army-maneuver-formations

You can do orbat changes in backround with same time as new drones are tested and incoroprated in there (like in your link). It dont need to be one or other.  You most likely need to change them anyway after first real use tough. RUS/UKR in this regard have had massive experience in what works and what not.

Now what it lacks is that you need start to mass training of drone operators aswell. IE Finland started only now training FPV drone operators (and start of next year it is expanded to multiple garrisons).

Edited October 20, 2025 by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

I disagree, you really want to experiment with what works first, rather than making changes that may prove expensive and erroneous. Look at how Britain transitioned to armour from cavalry horses, it set up an experimental brigade on Salisbury plain in the 1930's, and experimented for 4 years with what worked. Help back by the treasury and official disdain, its true, but they still build the bedrock of the Army that fought in the Western desert there. 

You have to know what works before you transition. Everyone is going to have their own personal take on it, before NATO takes a look at it and develops their own standardised proceedures. Thats probably going to take several years before we get it all worked out. 

In the meantime we have Ukraine helping Western armies transition, but as other have said, its not clear all those lessons will be relevant. We will have to see what shakes down.

[MiGG0]

15 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I disagree, you really want to experiment with what works first, rather than making changes that may prove expensive and erroneous. Look at how Britain transitioned to armour from cavalry horses, it set up an experimental brigade on Salisbury plain in the 1930's, and experimented for 4 years with what worked. Help back by the treasury and official disdain, its true, but they still build the bedrock of the Army that fought in the Western desert there. 

You have to know what works before you transition. Everyone is going to have their own personal take on it, before NATO takes a look at it and develops their own standardised proceedures. Thats probably going to take several years before we get it all worked out. 

In the meantime we have Ukraine helping Western armies transition, but as other have said, its not clear all those lessons will be relevant. We will have to see what shakes down.

I was pretty much saying same thing. You incorporate test drones and test new "drone focused OOB" same time in background (dont need to change current one fully yet. Only change "easy" parts like incorporating FPV operators and drones. In those point everyone should have alteast them incorporated to OOB). 

Edited October 20, 2025 by MiGG0

[Josh]

2 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

You can do orbat changes in backround with same time as new drones are tested and incoroprated in there (like in your link). It dont need to be one or other.  You most likely need to change them anyway after first real use tough. RUS/UKR in this regard have had massive experience in what works and what not.

Now what it lacks is that you need start to mass training of drone operators aswell. IE Finland started only now training FPV drone operators (and start of next year it is expanded to multiple garrisons).

The U.S. is in the process of completely reorganizing is reconnaissance formations around UAVs, loitering munitions, and electronic warfare. We are not seeing a major FPV effort, but we are seeing a fairly extensive UAV ISR effort. It training exercises it seems pretty clear that the preferred weapon is artillery, not FPV, because it is more responsive. For the U.S., most every artillery round can be guided - there are over a hundred thousand fuse guidance kits made, with the latest versions using the new M code. I suspect the U.S. largely skips FPV use and instead relies on artillery short term or automated target lock on longer term. Things like the Anduril bolt already attack a target independently once commanded to do so.

[Stuart Galbraith]

US Army even deleted its recce helicopters from the inventory, with the intent of developing a specialised recce helicopter that, to nobodies great surprise, never ultimately arrived.

In March 2020, the U.S. Army selected the Bell 360 Invictus and Sikorsky Raider X as part of the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program to fill the capability gap left by the retirement of the OH-58.^[69][70] On 29 September 2020, the US Army retired its last OH-58Cs from active service at Fort Irwin.<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IJPpoyd9iQ> In February 2024, FARA was cancelled; by this point, there were three abandoned attempts to replace the OH-58 at a cost in excess of $9 billion.^[71] The armed scout role has been filled by the AH-64 and the unarmed RQ-7 Shadow UAV;^[2][72] this combination reportedly accomplished 80% of the scouting mission, while also providing greater firepower, durability, and speed.^[73][61]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_OH-58_Kiowa

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Another "barn-tank" version https://t.me/milinfolive/158822

Why hasn't anyone tried large bundles of barbed wire?  

[MiGG0]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

The U.S. is in the process of completely reorganizing is reconnaissance formations around UAVs, loitering munitions, and electronic warfare. We are not seeing a major FPV effort, but we are seeing a fairly extensive UAV ISR effort. It training exercises it seems pretty clear that the preferred weapon is artillery, not FPV, because it is more responsive. For the U.S., most every artillery round can be guided - there are over a hundred thousand fuse guidance kits made, with the latest versions using the new M code. I suspect the U.S. largely skips FPV use and instead relies on artillery short term or automated target lock on longer term. Things like the Anduril bolt already attack a target independently once commanded to do so.

While artillery is good (nobody is dumping it), it cannot replace utility and cost effectiveness of FPV drones. Ie attacking asset inside of hardened fortifications. IMO there is no ”skipping” option. It just when you jump along. FPV drones itself are getting better and more sophisticated constantly.

Just for example, FPV teams could easely replace every ATGM team most orbats and get huge effectiveness/utility boost.

 

Edited October 20, 2025 by MiGG0

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Why hasn't anyone tried large bundles of barbed wire?  

Actually, it was done, but bundles of barbed wire are not so easy to find as just metal sheets and wires that are common in this old coal mining region.

   Another improvisation https://t.me/milinfolive/158830

Edited October 20, 2025 by Roman Alymov

[Josh]

57 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

While artillery is good (nobody is dumping it), it cannot replace utility and cost effectiveness of FPV drones (ie attacking asset inside of hardened fortifications.

Just for example, FPV teams could easely replace every ATGM team most orbats and get huge effectiveness/utility boost.

 

I am not arguing one way or the other, I am just pointing out that U.S. training exercises involving their new multi function recon companies (a stupidly long name) seems to still favor artillery over FPV, with loitering munitions also being organic to the company. They also retain AT assets, and I do not think that FPVs are responsive or reliable enough to replace these: it can take ten drones to get a hit and FPVs are limited to how many operators are available.

FPVs clearly are able to do very delicate and specific maneuvers around most any obstacle with a skilled operator and consistent control, but they are slow to deliver effects and salvo limited (very skilled labor intensive). I am not at all convinced they are the long term solution; I think they are just what can be fielded now in great numbers at low cost. The Israelis already have automated quad copters that can navigate complex urban environments and map them, with an option to explode as well. I think it likely that to the extent the U.S. employs quad cooters for complex terrain and fortifications it will go in that direction, possibly with some kind or air or artillery delivery to speed the process.

Edited October 20, 2025 by Josh

[MiGG0]

16 minutes ago, Josh said:

I am not arguing one way or the other, I am just pointing out that U.S. training exercises involving their new multi function recon companies (a stupidly long name) seems to still favor artillery over FPV, with loitering munitions also being organic to the company. They also retain AT assets, and I do not think that FPVs are responsive or reliable enough to replace these: it can take ten drones to get a hit and FPVs are limited to how many operators are available.

FPVs clearly are able to do very delicate and specific maneuvers around most any obstacle with a skilled operator and consistent control, but they are slow to deliver effects and salvo limited (very skilled labor intensive). I am not at all convinced they are the long term solution; I think they are just what can be fielded now in great numbers at low cost. The Israelis already have automated quad cooters that can navigate complex urban environments and map them, with an option to explode as well. I think it likely that to the extent the U.S. employs quad cooters for complex terrain and fortifications it will go in that direction, possibly with some kind or air or artillery delivery to speed the process.

FPV drones are just as reliable than most AT weapons (warheads are AT weapons) and engament times are usually faster than normal AT team (team itself wont need to move to position, they already are there. And drones itself can wait long time in ambush). Also drone speed itself depends on type (interceptor drone goes over 300km/h)
 

Also dont mix current civilian drones to what they will become. AI targeting, swarms, etc are still becoming.

[Josh]

25 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

FPV drones are just as reliable than most AT weapons (warheads are AT weapons) and engament times are usually faster than normal AT team (team itself wont need to move to position, they already are there. And drones itself can wait long time in ambush). Also drone speed itself depends on type (interceptor drone goes over 300km/h)
 

Also dont mix current civilian drones to what they will become. AI targeting, swarms, etc are still becoming.

FPV drones are not “there”; the operators are relatively far from the gray zone/front line. Most account from both sides indicate that it might take as many as ten drones on average achieve a hit; that is not very reliable.

In the future, these munitions will be self targeting and cooperative, but that is not an FPV at that point. I am saying the US likely skips over the step of 100% human control in favor of automation that scales better.

[Roman Alymov]

10 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

FPV drones are just as reliable than most AT weapons (warheads are AT weapons) and engament times are usually faster than normal AT team (team itself wont need to move to position, they already are there. And drones itself can wait long time in ambush). Also drone speed itself depends on type (interceptor drone goes over 300km/h)
 

Also dont mix current civilian drones to what they will become. AI targeting, swarms, etc are still becoming.

For illustration purposes, graphic description of one of the episodes of effective use of ATGMs (by people i personally know) on this war from the era when FPVs were allready active, but not so "everpresent" as they are now

"On the outskirts of Koksokhim ( Avdeevka coke chemical plant - RA) at a distance of twenty meters from each other, there are two technological towers. They provide clear view  of Berdychi <village>  that is still under the enemy. A hole was made in the wall of one of the towers and a Cornet was put up. A lot of rockets were brough to the position. 

The enemy is actively evacuating its forces in Berdychi. Armored vehicles are moving without  back and forth  without stopping. From our position, they are perfectly visible and the Cornet is constantly working. After each shot, an impenetrable cloud of dust, soot and dirt rises from the floor. Everyone is literally sitting in blackness. But we have scored a lot of enemy vehicles. Like in a shooting gallery.

After lunch, the point is closed - the "Cornet" is moved to the "residential" tower. We drink coffee, we joke. Explosion. Powerful, somewhere very close. We understand that this is "message to us." Everyone is silent and waiting for the next explosion. But nothing happens.

The enemy JDAM hit the adjacent "tower" from which we were working from. But there was no one there at the moment of impact. An hour later, the enemy's <TG> channel shows footage of the drone monitoring the moment of impact with comments about the "destroyed russian subhumans" I say, "I'm not going to write on my channel that they didn't get us" We're laughing."  https://t.me/ghost_of_novorossia/37520

    Episodes like that are no more possible (and not needed anymore) now, when drones made direct visual contact not needed.....

[Roman Alymov]

Another pro-Rus fromtline take, this time on IFVs

"An armored infantry fighting vehicle has armor. Previously, it was supposed to take troops on board, 8-10 people, covering them with fire, deliver them to the enemy's position - land them - cover them with fire - withdraw - bring the next group. So today this infantry fighting vehicle has no armor. Point. 
An FPV drone worth 40-50 thousand rubles ( ~USD600 - RA), carrying an RPG warhead, easily and with pleasure burns through this armor in any plane from any angle of attack. "Barns", of course, can extend the life of an infantry fighting vehicle on the battlefield, but not protect it. A massive strike by an explosive device in the absence of electronic warfare (and as we saw in these videos, there is no electronic warfare) destroys infantry fighting vehicles, and the personnel in it are absolutely unprotected. Point. Exhale.

We remembered that in the absence of anti-FPV EW there is no armor protection. In such conditions, heavy equipment loses the advantages of armor. The minefields, which cannot be cleared under the FPV strikes, deprive this "sort of armored vehicles" of maneuver. And the speed on the roads of this equipment does not exceed 30-50 km per hour. Accordingly, these are very slow, not maneuverable, unarmored pieces of shit, very expensive, but which are destroyed with high accuracy by very cheap drones.

And they don't have time to use their guns, as the enemy's FPV "meets" the columns way before to the line of attack is reached..."

https://t.me/filatovcorr/6026

[MiGG0]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

FPV drones are not “there”; the operators are relatively far from the gray zone/front line. Most account from both sides indicate that it might take as many as ten drones on average achieve a hit; that is not very reliable.

In the future, these munitions will be self targeting and cooperative, but that is not an FPV at that point. I am saying the US likely skips over the step of 100% human control in favor of automation that scales better.

Drones are constantly ”there”. When one is used, opetator fly new one to be ”there”. Multiple hits are needed because of cages and other similar protection. They work just effectively to any HEAT warhead. Jamming is constantly used and it affect many drones, but then there are also ones that are not effected. Self targeting eventually make jamming mostly useless.

If you just mean only to skip 100% human controlled phase, then I agree. But they still are and will be FPV drones with human control possibility and still my initial point that ”nobody cannot skip it” stands.

 

Edited October 20, 2025 by MiGG0