[ak217]

I suggest following the thousands of drone videos that continue to come out of the conflict. They contradict much of this analysis.

Small and medium drones are much more precise than artillery and remain incredibly effective at surveillance, spotting and at attacking the poorly operated, low survivability armor that Russians have, despite countermeasures. Ukraine is now domestically mass-producing bomber UAVs able to deliver multiple mortar rounds semi-autonomously on a target. While ECMs (jammers) have undoubtedly reduced drone effectiveness, ECMs come at a cost. A small ECM will have a very localized effect, while a large ECM can be taken out with anti-radiation missiles, as the Ukrainians have been doing.

Everyone is also recognizing the huge psychological effect of drones in the battlefield now. Any kind of massing is getting increasingly risky, communications, autonomy and mobility become critical.

The main point of the article is that the war is driving innovation in drones, which is pretty self-evident and doesn't seem overstated at all.

[createdapril24]

It needs to be noted that these drone videos are highly filtered - they are used as fundraising tools by Ukraine Armed Force units and then what "trends" are the spectacular videos (and often are out of context).

So while you may see videos of drones taking out tanks, they are often tanks that have already been killed and drones come in on an immobile target, etc.

You would also think that Ukraine is using more drones than Russia - based on the videos. But Russian Armed Forces don't need to fundraise for their equipment on Telegram, and what videos of Russian drone attacks that are published don't make it to trending in American social media (because "disinformation").

What's happening on the battlefield and what you see in those drone videos are very different due to selection bias.

Drones have less of a psychological effect than, say, glide bombs or artillery. This is due to the size of the munitions.

The broad thesis that war is driving innovation in drones isn't incorrect. But the supporting material in the article is (I've listed some of them above, and you seem to agree with them, point by point?). The article is overstating the case for drones, even calling them the successors of artillery. That's all my comment is addressing - let's right size and calibrate this: drones are being innovated on, however they are less effective at higher expense than they used to be, they very well may continue to trend in that direction, and they aren't a replacement for conventional weapons.

I guess another way to put it is the title of the article isn't wrong. But if you read the article, the content clearly is.

[pigpang]

> So while you may see videos of drones taking out tanks, they are often tanks that have already been killed and drones come in on an immobile target, etc.

Those tanks are immobilized by other drones or mines.

> You would also think that Ukraine is using more drones than Russia - based on the videos.

Yep, Ukraine uses more drones than RF in both absolute and relative terms, because Ukraine uses 10x less artillery shells.

[ak217]

No, I don't really agree with any of your points, I think they're either incorrect or not relevant. And the rest of the content in the article beyond the headline is reporting, not making a value judgment, so I don't see how it's wrong.

[createdapril24]

Oh interesting. No rebut of specific points or facts, just blanket disagreement?

I think its hard to call a whole article "correct" or "incorrect." This article makes many assumptions, states many things as facts, and yes - makes judgements. For the reasons states above I think the article overstates its case. It's behind the newest reporting by around two years. It misses or completely excludes important details (e.g. range requirements for retransmitter drones).

That doesn't make the article wholey incorrect or worthless. But yeah I think if someone is reading that article they should be aware of its inaccuracy, factual deficits, etc...

Happy to dive into any of the one-by-one points in the GP comment if there's questions or skepticism.