Head of Ukraine’s national foreign intelligence service – “We have studied…the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy. We are aware of Russia’s long-term plans…at least until 2030.”
That’s just the end effect though, you still need support from artillery, air defense, anti armor, combat engineering, and a ton more to enable those rates. Drones are the tip of the force multiplying stack, they wouldn’t be effective by themselves.
Air defense for example causes very few casualties, only a couple of pilots. But it enables the drones to fly without being shot down quickly. It’s an enabler, a force multiplier for the drones. If you didn’t have air defense, you’d get a lot less effective than just the 1% fewer direct casualties would suggest.
I assumed these are small fpv drones? They have kind of broken the traditional warfare dynamics and are more like ground force+ without the traditional air to air susceptibility.
That’s just the end effect though, you still need support from artillery, air defense, anti armor, combat engineering, and a ton more to enable those rates. Drones are the tip of the force multiplying stack, they wouldn’t be effective by themselves.
That’s the other 15% of course.
Drones are replacing artillery and aircraft as the primary weapon of power on the battlefield. That 85% number is truly remarkable.
In previous conflicts that’s about the percentage of casualties and equipment losses that aircraft and artillery combined caused.
Air defense for example causes very few casualties, only a couple of pilots. But it enables the drones to fly without being shot down quickly. It’s an enabler, a force multiplier for the drones. If you didn’t have air defense, you’d get a lot less effective than just the 1% fewer direct casualties would suggest.
I assumed these are small fpv drones? They have kind of broken the traditional warfare dynamics and are more like ground force+ without the traditional air to air susceptibility.