War in Ukraine, technical and military aspects only

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

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

Rolled or barbed wire should have the advantage of being relatively light and forcing drone detonation a distance from the armor, without in many cases destroying the wire.   Also might have the properties to be mounted around the tracks at the base.  Why didn't they just order in a trainload of the stuff?

[bojan]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

...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....

It took about 4 ATGMs per (confirmed) kill in 1991. Accounts from Ukraine (real ones, from frontline soldiers) say that only 1/3 Javelins fired produced a kill on AFVs. Compared to that, 10 drones does not sound so unreliable.

[Josh]

13 minutes ago, bojan said:

It took about 4 ATGMs per (confirmed) kill in 1991. Accounts from Ukraine (real ones, from frontline soldiers) say that only 1/3 Javelins fired produced a kill on AFVs. Compared to that, 10 drones does not sound so unreliable.

It hardly sounds great either, especially factoring in travel time. If enough FPVs are focused on a target area, they are far cheaper than ATGWs at that job. But if there is a sudden need for a lot of effective AT at a point where ISR did not previously identify a need, there is going to be lag time. And FPVs do not have the destructive power of ATGWs; it seems sometimes multiple hits are needed to disable.

This is not to say that FPV is ineffective, only to say I would not sell off my AT assets yet either.

Edited October 20, 2025 by Josh

[Markus Becker]

7 minutes ago, Josh said:

It hardly sounds great either.

User error because of unfamiliarity? Or did the Ukraine get them well in advance of the 2022 invasion? 

[Sinistar]

the drones have likely been the single biggest factor in changing behaviors on the battlefield- i.e., why even single vehicle maneuver elements are detected and picked off, never mind a company or a battalion level maneuver scheme

 

a drone swarm is cheaper and more readily available than much more intricate ATGM complex with its launcher or launching vehicle or platform

where the quadcopter type drones are weaker in payload they make up for in versatility 

no ATGM can actually reverse course- they generally fly in the forward direction until they reach their limits or hit something

the drones can bypass the main armor arrays and come in from behind to hit the engines or fly into the gap between the turret and hull or strike the final drive or the sprocket and mission kill a vehicle where it is then either abandoned or subsequently finished off with more drones or with artillery

 

 

the drones can back up, move sideways, move up or down or land and can enter into buildings and search the floors or fly and maneuver within trench lines

 

i have seen drone operators hunt down ATGM sections holed up in bunkers and buildings earlier in the war

i never saw it work that way in reverse

 

they have cargo carriers and can deliver mines and explosives or food and supplies

the reconnaissance and spotting versions show the parties a large section of the battlefield which in itself is a major advantage even if unarmed

Edited October 20, 2025 by Sinistar

[Josh]

10 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

User error because of unfamiliarity? Or did the Ukraine get them well in advance of the 2022 invasion? 

I suspect they are just harder to use, especially under fire, than the manufacturers would leave you to believe, but that is probably something Bojan can answer better. IIRC correctly the Soviet ATGWs in the Sinai in ‘73 had an atrocious failure rate that was offset by the shear number used and the lack of any effective suppression tactics at the time.

[Josh]

4 minutes ago, Sinistar said:

the drones have likely been the single biggest factor in changing behaviors on the battlefield- i.e., why even single vehicle manuever elements can be picked of, never mind a company or a battalion level maneuver scheme

 

a drone swarm is cheaper and more readily available than much more intricate ATGM complex with its launcher or launching vehicle or platform

where the quadcopter type drones are weaker in payload they make up for in versatility 

no ATGM can actually reverse course- they generally fly in the forward direction until they reach their limits or hit something

the drones can bypass the main armor array and come in from behind to hit the engines or fly into the gap between the turret and hull or strike the final drive or the sprocket and mission kill a vehicle where it is then either abandoned or subsequently finished off with more drones or with artillery

 

 

the drones can back up, move sideways, move up or down or land and can enter into buildings and search the floor or fly and maneuver within trench lines

 

they have cargo carriers and can deliver mines and explosives or food and supplies

the reconnaissance and spotting versions show the parties a large section of the battlefield which in itself is a major advantage even if unarmed

It is no doubt a revolution in warfare, but I think FPVs are overhyped when the real threat is persistent, pervasive ISR. I think the recce element is far, far more dangerous than the munitions element.

[Ssnake]

56 minutes ago, Josh said:

It is no doubt a revolution in warfare, but I think FPVs are overhyped when the real threat is persistent, pervasive ISR. I think the recce element is far, far more dangerous than the munitions element.

This 

[Sinistar]

even if the drones are overhyped

you do not see large quantities of man portable ATGMs and therefore are not even in the position to be hyped

at this phase unlike earlier they do not have either a ubiquitous presence or really much of a presence at all- whether exaggerated or not

 

the drones have either an intended or unintended suppressive effect on the battlefield whether or not they are armed

 

when you watch videos of the combatants or video content makers uploading their reports and you see or hear the drones all around constantly or the detectors are going off and the parties must change location or take cover or hide or presume they can no longer resume their behaviors

 

it is likely the single biggest reason why armored vehicles have stopped operating to any great extent or expose themselves briefly to fire a few shots from long range from reports or why the trenches came back to this extent

 

 

 

 

[Josh]

Someone suggested that UAVs could replace ATGWs and I disagreed. There is no doubt that drones are now the prevalent munition, though I would argue the mere threat of artillery still heavily shaped the battlefield even if both sides  rarely provide enough target opportunities to use it in a decisive way.

[Sinistar]

there are vehicle mounted weapons which are likely not to be replaced any time soon

it would require redesigning these vehicles in order to do that- in particular helicopters and aircraft

their basic designs would have to be scrapped and redesigned, sensors removed and replaced and so on

 

as far as the man portable ATGM is where this is more contentious 

the simple fact in the one war going on right now which is a proving ground for weapons or tactics is the one showing you this basic fact that there are far more drones than ATGMs at this phase

 

the drones have major advantages that the ATGMs cannot match- production and delivery times

even if the ATGMs were more effective individually the drones are simply replaced faster and are more available

you can put up more drones than a single ATGM at a fraction of the cost or even time training crews 

this goes with the basic understanding which is one of the major characteristics of this war: cheap and available is beating fewer and expensive in an attrition war or a war which is consuming large quantities of resources

 

from a technical standpoint the drones out-range the longest range man-portable weapons and can loiter while once fired the ATGM has a few seconds to find or reach a target

 

but i think one of the most effective dimensions of the drones is their reputation-

it is enough that even the reports of drones- whether they are attacking or  only passing by- is enough to disrupt plans or change or modify behaviors

you actually see this in the video of war correspondents during their broadcasts- over and over again you hear the drones buzzing around or a report on the radio net warning of drones in the area and the reporters or the units they are embedded with react

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2025 by Sinistar

[MiGG0]

6 hours ago, Josh said:

Someone suggested that UAVs could replace ATGWs and I disagreed. There is no doubt that drones are now the prevalent munition, though I would argue the mere threat of artillery still heavily shaped the battlefield even if both sides  rarely provide enough target opportunities to use it in a decisive way.

I did say they could replace ATGM in orbats easely and they could. Only adventage that ATGM:s have is that they can launch repeated attacks ("reloads") faster. In reality it wont work anymore as position is compromized as soon as you launch (or many time even before) and is attacked pretty much immediately by drones/artillery. Effectiveness of drone warhead depends just on drone size (carrying capasity) and most of the time they dont need heavy warhead as they can choose weak point where to attack (which ATGMs cannot really do. Top attack missiles still "miss" by hitting wrong areas and cages standoff affect them just as much).

Lets say that drone team (usually consist 3 people from my observation: pilot, observer/commication and techinician that makes next drones ready) on average operate 10km from attack point (can be longer can be shorter, but on average) and typical drone itself fly around 100km/h. It takes about 6 minutes to get new drone to area. How they mitigate this is that there is multiple teams operating same area and strikes/recon happens constantly (there are teams "on duty", teams on rest, and teams on stand by. Point is that they are operating drones 24/7 in choosed target area). AFV/Vehicles cannot hide after spotted as recon drones constantly observe/search/follow them and communicate them to strike teams where to look them, etc. Only saving after that is to get out of drone range before they destroy you. Cages help for few strikes, but drones will dismantle them strike by strike and eventually get through to weakspots (For "turtles"/harder targets they usually go for mobility kill first to get then "unlimited time" to destroy target).

Edited October 21, 2025 by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Josh said:

It is no doubt a revolution in warfare, but I think FPVs are overhyped when the real threat is persistent, pervasive ISR. I think the recce element is far, far more dangerous than the munitions element.

Looking at a historical model from WW1 (im not certain its right, but its suggestive of where we might be going) the first generation aeroplanes were really only useful for recce and bugger all else (I dont count guys bringing along their hunting rifles as making them combat aircraft) Then they had a few models that were successful at killing other aircraft, so that became the next evolution.And then much later, did anyone figure out you could use them for direct fire support. It was only 30 years later there city were busting thousand bomber raids.

I guess the point here to remember is, this is just the first generation here. These are not cavalry horses, when what you see is what you get for evermore. The technology probably can be improved, and if it does, its not particularly clear what direction its going in.  If there has been a radical evolution of warfare with what amount to fairly piddling quadcopters, then its probably going to develop to be at least as radical an evolution to warfare as the advent of aircraft.

Munitions element right now is piddling. What happens when you build a quadcopter around a decent light RPG rather than just bolting RPG warheads to one? What happens if you develop bomber variants the size of a Jetson, that can carry DIPCM bomblets? I dont know if the tech is going to go in these directions, but they look to me possible.

[kokovi]

Israel managed to do fine in an urban warfare area under drone threat. Instead of hyping UAVs, we should probably ask them for their lessons learned.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, kokovi said:

Israel managed to do fine in an urban warfare area under drone threat. Instead of hyping UAVs, we should probably ask them for their lessons learned.

What worthwhile perspective can you gain about the impact of drones on mechanised operations, from a tiny cockpit of a war thats being fought through a city (poor terrain for tanks anyway) against a foe that prefered to put its resources into rockets it could fire into Israel, not quadcopters? Precious few I would think.

The IDF actually did a study on the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and despite the relative lack of data made the conclusion that drones are what created the decisive victory, but didnt win the war by themselves. They did not however stop to think what the result may have been (as has occurred in Ukraine) if BOTH sides were utilizing drones, tactical impasse.

https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/drones-in-the-nagorno-karabakh-war-analyzing-the-data/

I believe many of their conclusions have since been outmoded by Ukraine, but the point that drones give even 3rd world nations the ability to cheaply acquire a tactical airforce is a good one. One can only imagine how the Blackhawk incident in Mogadishu would have turned out if the Somalians had scores of quadcopters to back up the guys with AKs and RPG's. It makes intervention in the 3rd would potentially even more costly than it has been. 

[MiGG0]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Looking at a historical model from WW1 (im not certain its right, but its suggestive of where we might be going) the first generation aeroplanes were really only useful for recce and bugger all else (I dont count guys bringing along their hunting rifles as making them combat aircraft) Then they had a few models that were successful at killing other aircraft, so that became the next evolution.And then much later, did anyone figure out you could use them for direct fire support. It was only 30 years later there city were busting thousand bomber raids.

I guess the point here to remember is, this is just the first generation here. These are not cavalry horses, when what you see is what you get for evermore. The technology probably can be improved, and if it does, its not particularly clear what direction its going in.  If there has been a radical evolution of warfare with what amount to fairly piddling quadcopters, then its probably going to develop to be at least as radical an evolution to warfare as the advent of aircraft.

Munitions element right now is piddling. What happens when you build a quadcopter around a decent light RPG rather than just bolting RPG warheads to one? What happens if you develop bomber variants the size of a Jetson, that can carry DIPCM bomblets? I dont know if the tech is going to go in these directions, but they look to me possible.

Already done in WWI 1917 -> Halberstadt CL.II, Sopwith Camels carried Cooper bombs for ground attack/support, etc. Bombing raids was thing even in WWI. Your point stands, but it was way faster you even think

Edited October 21, 2025 by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

Sure, thats 3 years of war before someone figured out it worked. It was only in 1918 anyone really used it successfully in an offensive.

Well we were getting zeppelin raids in 1915 and Gotha raids in 1917 I think? But yes, the technology to do long range strike didnt really exist until the 1940's, and even then arguably it took till 1945 before they perfected it.

We are watching the very thin edge of an emerging iceberg here. We are assuming the technology will stay roughly static, but as we see, its going to go in radically different directions. I can see it taking up the role of secure coms in some form.

[MiGG0]

15 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Sure, thats 3 years of war before someone figured out it worked. It was only in 1918 anyone really used it successfully in an offensive.

 

Thats 3 years from point they hardly flyed any plane

16 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well we were getting zeppelin raids in 1915 and Gotha raids in 1917 I think? But yes, the technology to do long range strike didnt really exist until the 1940's, and even then arguably it took till 1945 before they perfected it.

"Long range" depends on POV. IE at the time it was very long range and most WWII 1940 raids are nowdays not that long range. 

18 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We are watching the very thin edge of an emerging iceberg here. We are assuming the technology will stay roughly static, but as we see, its going to go in radically different directions. I can see it taking up the role of secure coms in some form.

Oh, drone are replacing most duties/equipment in military. It is just question how fast and in which order.

[Stuart Galbraith]

18 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Thats 3 years from point they hardly flyed any plane

"Long range" depends on POV. IE at the time it was very long range and most WWII 1940 raids are nowdays not that long range. 

Oh, drone are replacing most duties/equipment in military. It is just question how fast and in which order.

No, thats a fair point. It was 1903 that was the first, its 1909 before they feel vaguely confident enough to fly one across the channel, in 1914 aviation was 11 years old, but they were still figuring out even how ot fly.

Well, a lancaster had a range of about 1200 miles, which still qualifies as a decent theatre strike range, assuming of course it could be survivable today, which regrettably it would not.

Again, I dont disagree. It will slow down again after this war, but it wont stop. Not when MOD's around the world figure out the kind of savings that there are to  be made over more conventional systems.

 

[Josh]

2 hours ago, kokovi said:

Israel managed to do fine in an urban warfare area under drone threat. Instead of hyping UAVs, we should probably ask them for their lessons learned.

Israel did not have to deal with anything like the volume the Russians and Ukrainians throw at each other. They are the global experts currently, and while Ukraine probably suffers for advanced technical resources, there’s still plenty to learn and an opportunity to test some anti UAV kit there. Both these things have been happening for some time now.

[glenn239]

10 hours ago, Sinistar said:

there are vehicle mounted weapons which are likely not to be replaced any time soon

it would require redesigning these vehicles in order to do that- in particular helicopters and aircraft

their basic designs would have to be scrapped and redesigned, sensors removed and replaced and so on

 

as far as the man portable ATGM is where this is more contentious 

 

I don't know whether the man-portable ATGM has a long term role on a drone dominated battlefield, but I do know that between ATGM crews and drone teams, who is the hunter and who is the hunted.

[Yama]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Sure, thats 3 years of war before someone figured out it worked. It was only in 1918 anyone really used it successfully in an offensive.

I think it's more like that the early aircraft were not very efficient way to deliver munitions at enemy frontline troops - compared to artillery - and much too valuable as recon platforms. Tactical bombing was done almost as soon as military aircraft became a reality (first instance 1911) but targets were typically rear area infrastructure like depots and troop camps.

It's not like armies did not realize bombs could be dropped from aerial vehicles, indeed the whole practice was banned by treaties even before the aircraft capable of doing it existed.

[ink]

Well, if China does indeed go to war against Taiwan, we could face a situation where drone swarms numbering hundreds of thousands blacken the sky.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think that possible. OTOH, I think Taiwan would be fools if they didnt figure on using them back, if only against the landing ships.

[alejandro_]

Chief of Staff of the 412th Nemesis Regiment Artem Belenkov: Regarding the use of UAVs, Ukraine has realized its potential by about 25%. We have room to grow 

https://censor.net/biz/resonance/3579762/nachalnyk-shtabu-412-polku-nemesis-artem-byelyenkov-po-bpla-ukrayina-realizuvala-sviyi-potentsial-na