Small UAS / Drones and related general thread - NOT Swarming ones.

Forest Green said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ0Gea7bOUk


Always figured that to be the case when people were harping on about shells per day and 9,000 vs 20,000. You can fire 100,000 unguided shells per day and miss with every single one, FPVs, not so much.
Click to expand...

I suspect on the Ukrainian side at least the lack of shells has produced this effect. Artillery is still vastly more effective against troops in the open.
 
Josh_TN said:
I suspect on the Ukrainian side at least the lack of shells has produced this effect. Artillery is still vastly more effective against troops in the open.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to concentrate infantry when infantry firepower is not important. It appears to me that troops are forward mostly to dig and occupy defensive fortification and a highly dispersed approach is fine.
 
shin_getter said:
There is no reason to concentrate infantry when infantry firepower is not important. It appears to me that troops are forward mostly to dig and occupy defensive fortification and a highly dispersed approach is fine.
Click to expand...

The Russians have been assaulting on numerous axis of advance and UAVs are not nearly as responsive or suppressive as artillery is. The lack of 155mm in particular is probably what enabled most of Russia’s advance.

This is not to say that FPV UAVs are not dangerous or effective, but I doubt under normal conditions they would inflict the largest percentage of the casualties.

It is also a little suspect that this particular individual has such detailed casualty information to come to that broad conclusion.
 
Ugly said:
...UAVs as a core part of a modern Western land force.


the Autors must drink poison for this.
Core part of modern warfare is an reconnaissance and strike contour, which has only a part of the UAV.
Without artillery, aviation, tanks and comunication troops your core part is shit


P.S. Admin, you'd better get back from repression to the subject area. :)
Click to expand...

Tanks? The Russians and Ukrainians seem to prefer "tank". Singular.

Like it or not but the proliferation of FOG-type munitions with integrated killer-ISR capabilities means armored vehicles are less survivable in numbers and more survivable in singletons. At least it might make presently anemic Western tank fleets more impactful since acquisition of relevant tank defense systems should be easier in small batches.

shin_getter said:
There is no reason to concentrate infantry when infantry firepower is not important. It appears to me that troops are forward mostly to dig and occupy defensive fortification and a highly dispersed approach is fine.
Click to expand...

"Highly dispersed" is relative. A five to seven man assault section against a two man foxhole is a very serious attack these days.

Drones only work in fair weather and without EW. This is hard in the defense but easy in the attack. Artillery doesn't care for weather. Polaris golf cart doesn't care for splinter protection.
 
Kat Tsun said:
"Highly dispersed" is relative. A five to seven man assault section against a two man foxhole is a very serious attack these days.
Click to expand...
You don't need an assault section against a foxhole. There is enough videos of drone bombing against foxholes and trenches to show that it is not really defensible in the long term.

A viable defensive position is a trench network with top cover, a set of concealed bunkers or a settlement with a number of basements. Drones can not easily access or attack unground positions.

So how do you attack such positions? First have your own forces interdict, suppress and destroy strongpoints so that the enemy have limited fpv and drone sorties out of frontline positions. With short ranges of evtols, rear areas can offer little support and an advance rate faster than enemy sortie rate enables one to close. Enemy direct and indirect fires can also be suppressed via drone enabled fires.

So you close with such positions. When clearing such a position width of the effective battlefront is one men wide so in theory you only need one men. You could be flanked in a trench by opponents going over the top, but your own drone force can cover that threat. The limited range of drones mean your own drone teams may have to advance to maintain persistent cover but dispersion can be far greater than forces limited by LOS firearms.

Now, if the opponent have no artillery you could send in more men at higher concentration, as drone overwatch is unreliable due to bandwidth, surprise enemy EW action, and drone supply issues. That said if the opponent do have plentiful artillery than attacking in forces of one might result in the lowest casualty for men lost, if the morale holds up, which it simply might not as isolated humans are generally not aggressive an tend to flee.

There is a reason why motorcycles is considered viable transport for ops. If all you need is someone to throw grenade across that L-shaped trench with a roof, why do you need a fireteam?
 
Last edited:
shin_getter said:
So how do you attack such positions?
Click to expand...

The same as always: a lot of artillery, some infantrymen with grit and bayonets, and a tank or two in support.

If you lack this, you simply don't attack, because you can't.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom