>>65308785
>How could you on the modern battlespace?
First of all you need effective defense against drones.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=WIIQuTU3RmE
Militaries need to stop sitting on their dicks with anti drones ignorance and air superiority copes.

>>65308828
It's not just drones but being able to call for accurate fire missions using said drones. Most close in defense systems being tested now are mainly for not getting your tank blown up by a flying IED. How is that going to stop drones flying further away who are acting as spotters for the artillery?

The inter-war theorists already have the answers. We need to attack through the enemies entire depth at once, paralyzing their response.

The enemy should not be able to maneuver forces towards the breach point, and neither should they be able to hold the entire line with enough force to prevent a breach at any point.

Drones make this job easier for the attacker too. They can concentrate their forces in a place of their choice, and prevent the enemy from doing the same.

Right now the biggest issue is being observed in staging areas, so the enemy knows where to mass their fires to stop your breach before you can attack.

In the future the attacker will need to gain drone superiority, probably anti-drone drone swarms

followed by a concentrated attack on pre-selected targets in the enemies rear
vertical envelopment behind obstacles
drone swarm removal of mine fields

and finally ground maneuver and breaching through isolated and suppressed enemy defensive positions

The two most important parts to make this work that dont currently exist are anti-drone drone swarms, and swarming mine removers. Both are theoretically possible. So attack is theoretically possible.

>>65308908
>How is that going to stop drones flying further away who are acting as spotters for the artillery?

You are right to highlight this, the major mechanized attacks of the early Ukrainian war were stopped with drone corrected tube artillery not with FPV drones

the problem is that you can be attrited on the road march miles away from the objective, persistently just slowly losing your force. You can never marshall any forces without them constantly being attrited. If you start gathering forces for an attack, now you start receiving MRL fire and cluster rockets instead of just tube arty.

The solution is a. remove the spotting drones and b. plan your maneuver better, so avoid staging areas and try and marshall forces from multiple axis into a single point in time and space by surprise.

So you would use diversionairy movement, convoys going in multiple directions, And suddenly you realize that half of them happened to end up in the same place at the same time, and attacked you

File: Aeronaves_Ágata_7_-_FAB_-(...).jpg (212 KB, 934x584)

212 KB JPG

>>65309126
>probably anti-drone drone swarms
At most an inefficient solution, given the most expensive air-to-air drones exceed the cost of the manned aircraft capable of efficiently engaging them: I believe the best response to existing drones is existing air superiority tactics, with a bit of a twist.
The main advantage drone teams possess is of course the fact they do not place their pilots at risk allowing for otherwise reckless maneuvers to be executed. However, with the assistance of a robust detection system capable of tracing their telemetry streams (this is even easier for fiber optic drones who leave a literal trail back to their operators) perhaps with a module similar or modified from existing AWACs, multi-role aircraft like the F-35 can completely bypass the platforms (which are all subsonic) and strike at the operator to negate their safety through distance, leading to suppression: do you operate your drones on the field for simple recon missions knowing it can paint a mile-sized target onto your position? Suddenly, operators have to face the same problem of visibility as their peers.

>>65308908
>t's not just drones!!!
>cried boomer for hundreds time adamantly refusing to put anti drone guns on tanks and SPGs
Until this boomer mindset is completely eradicated you stuck in the new WWI
>drones go reeeeee
>your tens millions tanks go boom!

>>65309951
Did you even read the post?

>>65309726
How does one conduct SEAD against targets with small to zero emissions, can relocate rapidly and can hide/entrench themselves underground? SEAD is effective because it's going up against targets that are expensive, exposed, and emit massive amounts of electromagnetic emissions as if someone turning on a flashlight in an open field at night. The obvious slam dunk would be to kill the operators rather than focusing on the drones but that's also the million dollar question. How can you locate them and engage them? Even if you can detect remote controlled drones, the enemy can just switch it up by using fiber optic drones.

>follow the wire
Incredibly hard to find and even if you do (A). the attack has already been successful by the enemy. (B). the enemy drone team has already relocated. (C). the enemy knows you're trying to find them by following the wire so they will just send drones along the previous drones' flight path to get you.

The only real stop gap response to drones would be to develop defense systems onboard AFV's and hope that DEW in the form of high energy lasers pan out and either start slapping them onto AFV's and or develop new air defense vehicles built around the use of lasers.

Biology is already a battle ground of millions of swarming effectors like viruses and bacteria, the only way nature came up with to defend is your own swarming effectors like white blood cells. Even if they are more expensive and bigger than viruses and bacteria

We've yet to see a war in the new drone era where one side has air supremacy. So the question becomes: Will drones remain as effective as we see them in current wars when one side can strike operational and strategic targets en masse with air power? Using drones against enemy trench lines a kilometer away is one thing, how effective will that remain when forward positions can get curb stomped by air power to create local gaps and battalion, brigade and division level logistical and C2 nodes get struck which can then be exploited by a mechanized force? Again, it's one thing to send drones at known, static enemy positions a kilometer away. It's another to try to engage a large mechanized enemy force swarming through your rear areas that are highly mobile and their exact positions are unknown or in the context of a meeting engagement. If you can maintain that tempo where the fighting remains fluid, hasty and leans more towards meeting engagements, there's a good chance the effectiveness of drones drop substantially. At the end of the day, drone teams still need to know where to actually fly their drones to.

>>65309726
Problem with that is that we're at the baby farts beginning of the shell games we're going to see as far as hiding drone operators goes. Pretty sure we're going to be seeing hybrid fiber optic and mesh based solar powered node systems in the not too distant future which will massively extend their control link range without going full AI and make finding operators extremely difficult. They'd be cheap, air/drone deployable, and allow for all sorts of shenanigans like non GPS dependent precision guidance too.

>>65310160
Did you?
Boomer and you similar mindset is what sends unprotected AFVs under drones attack using different kind of copes ("muh artillery!") as explanation of this insanity.
Just fucking stop!
Start shooting FPV drones down, no more boomer lazy excuses!

>>65310249
Retard the post clearly states TO equip AFV's with defensive weapons on them. The point being made is that drones aren't just there to kamikaze into tanks. They are used as spotters for artillery which makes defensive weapons mounted on vehicles not the end all be all solution. Develop some reading comprehension before you shitpost.

>>65308785
>every jackass has a smartphone who can instantly post on the internet makes breaching operations borderline impossible
Ah you are an idiot.
The biggest issue for a breaching operation isn't civilians relaying positions, it's now enemy micro cameras, drones and sound sensors.

>>65310218
>What if one side just had an extra 20 trillion dollars of air power HUH
>WHERES YOUR DRONES NOW?

typical smooth brained opinion
US won this latest Iran war huh?

>>65308785
This isn't a problem for first world countries. They can just bomb everything with an airforce, and only then send in the ground force to mop up. Operation Desert Storm started with 6 weeks of nonstop bombardment until everything was too degraded to meaningfully oppose the incoming army.

File: drone operated.mp4 (1.59 MB, 852x480)

1.59 MB MP4

>>65310588
>they can just bomb
see israel
>but if i only do a air campaign
see how trump's doing with the hormuz
>buuuut
the ground war only happened because saddam let america mass ground forces without launching scuds on major bases,
>but patriot
wasnt built to intercept balistic missiles and stil sucked durying the war
>but wed just bomb the launchers
see how iran keept using rockets while america had complete air supremacy over their airspace

>>65310605
see Israel... huh? What kind of a retort is that? I'm sure the rest of the shit you typed is equally drivel.

>>65310616
the israeli ambasador went to the UN to complain about drones.

>>65310616
and their best respose after a few month of getting hit with drones has been fish nets

>>65310616
Yes, the rest of it is gibberish. Good call.

>>65308828
>anti drones ignorance and air superiority copes
We have little or no practical knowledge of how a drone saturated battlefiedl interacts with actual air power.

>>65309134
>a. remove the spotting drones
absolutely impossible
they are 10-20 miles away from you

>b. plan your maneuver better, so avoid staging areas and try and marshall forces from multiple axis into a single point in time and space by surprise.

A level of organization that no country in the world possesses
Head on assaults simply do not work anymore, this is the trend from literally the 1800's, weaponry is more lethal and "bravery" or "discipline" is not the solution

>>65310757
You just can't put 2+2 together.

Air power designed to combat different threats can't do shit about drones. A vietnam-era door gunner would be 1000x more useful against drones than a modern hightech fighter jet

>>65310218
Uh anon, what do you think Ukraine is doing to Russia's rear areas with mid-range strike, or Russia is doing to Ukraine's forward outposts with FABs?
>At the end of the day, drone teams still need to know where to actually fly their drones to.
No, that's the whole damn point! Yes, in a static trench war in 2026 Ukraine the poor slavs are cost-optimizing for what they have. But scroll backwards 10 years to something like Syria and you'll find modern drones are way better than ATGMs, while scroll forward 10 years and first world armies are shooting autonomous drones like bullets for suppression.

Drones making scouting cost money instead of lives and move at 60mph in the air instead of 30mph on the ground is a revolution. The videos of FPV kills are a sideshow.

>>65310781
>they are 10-20 miles away from you
Sometimes. More often they are Mavic class heavy quadcopters/hexacopters about 1-2km away.

/k/ needs to know about military DRI standards. detect/recognize/identify. cold war shit desu - today we all expect Identify levels of resolution. But plug those into a camera calculator and see what effective ranges pop out. The rule of thumb is: beyond casual small arms range, but a lot closer than you think unless it's a fixed wing drone with a giant gimbal.

File: infantry fighting load ca(...).png (1.08 MB, 1171x796)

1.08 MB PNG

Honest answer that the US Army would never do would be to employ conventional forces in a hybrid manner i.e. fighting both conventionally when capable and asymmetrically when you can't. When things like drones, ISR, etc make it impossible to mass, take and hold terrain, or sustain the fight via company/battalion combat trains being supplied by brigade/division field trains then you don't deploy your line infantry units like line infantry. You use them like how the PAVN used theirs. You infiltrate, raid, ambush, "hit and run" delaying actions and mobile defenses rather than area defensives and you resupply via caches with the only positions "held" being tunnels and bunkers that are hidden and can take a beating (underground positions are pretty good at brushing off airstrikes).

But again, the US Army would never actually do that. It wants to do the armored thrusts and joint force entries while ignoring the fact that the game has drastically changed since the fall of the Soviet Union which is reinforced with a false sense of security because we have treated curb stomping third world shithole countries armies as near peer. Which is to say; if the invasion of Iraq happened in the modern day, and we still managed to reach Bagdad (which would be an if now and not a guarantee), there would be an immense amount of bodybags coming back home as a result.

>>65311263
>Which is to say; if the invasion of Iraq happened in the modern day, and we still managed to reach Bagdad
>Abrams tanks without drone defenses can reach Bagdad in the current year

>>65310781
>they are 10-20 miles away from you

the type of drones heavy enough to carry high quality sensors are also economical to engage with real surface to air missiles

>>65310781
>A level of organization that no country in the world possesses

wrong, time and space coordination was done in ww2 with shitty radios. Now we have blue force tracker and moving target indicator

File: slaughterbots.png (1.34 MB, 2702x1156)

1.34 MB PNG

Movement on the ground is difficult. With air superiority, reverse uno it. Drop mines, off route mines, mine laying drones, land-and-ambush-drones, networked high performance missile in a box, a entire defense complex backed by air power, and make all land logistics a impossible breaching op. When opponent mobility is zero, air mobility wins the day.

Moving on land with air superiority is dumb.

>>65308785
you become invisible there is no way around it militaries have to invent a cheap invisibility cloak

File: what 1.jpg (91 KB, 800x800)

91 KB JPG

>>65311358
Man, if only there was a war happening right now where Abrams tanks have been utilized in a heavy drone environment to see whether they would do well or not.

>>65311386
>radios and blue force tracker
Get's jammed and degraded. The point anon is making is that you can't just mass entire battalions into assembly areas or attack positions just a couple kilometers from their objectives like in WWII. They would all get got by drones and precision guided munitions called in by said drones.

>>65311358
>(which would be an if now and not a guarantee)
lern2reed

>>65311429
That's why I said don't mass them until the actual attack takes place. Also you will have a hard time jamming modern programmable radios that are sending low bitrate information like blueforce tracker. Less bitrate than even voice communication

>>65311433
>That's why I said don't mass them until the actual attack takes place
Oh it's that easy? You can coordinate the movement of entire battalions over dozens of kilometers which would still be too close, it would realistically be 50km+ away since modern ISR would pick that shit up instantly - Move them all in sync to the breach point, conduct the breach with zero effective means of suppressing enemy drones or obscuring your forces from drone observation, and then penetrate through enemy lines with follow on forces moving in?

No army can do that. Hence why we see what we see in Ukraine. Neither side can effectively do shit other than try to maintain a positive k/d ratio against the other with gaining territory as a by product of that.

>>65311440
Yes.... what's your plan? give up and die?

There will be combined arms breaching, it will be hard, people will die

It will involve diversion, maneuver, and synchronized effects through the enemies depth.
Did you know that bullets kill people too? Doesn't stop a light infantry platoon going on patrol.

Drones are not a game changer, in Ukraine they are mostly an artillery replacement. We were already planning on fighting through corrected enemy indirect fires. Ukraine was stopping russian mechanized formations with tube artillery plus maviks in 2022 not using FPV drones.

We were already planning on conducting combined arms breaches under drone observation. Opfor has observation and indirect fires at both JRTC and NTC.

>>65311440
Also there have been successful mechanized breaches through minefields with enemy observation done by both sides in Ukraine

>>65310623
This does not mean they're losing the war to drones, it's that they find them uncivil in some manner. Israel's problems with drones are more in line with German opinions about shotguns in WW1 and allied perceptions of German serrated bayonets in the same.
If they were losing, we wouldn't be hearing complaints about genocide from Hezbollah, would we?

File: 15mm scale miniature sci (...).jpg (10 KB, 236x219)

10 KB JPG

>>65311395
I think right now militaries are in a weird spot. Obviously drones are a threat but you also don't want to invest billions of dollars into modernization programs just for something to come along that offers a cheap solution. If things remain the same and militaries learn the hard way, which is usually the only way they learn, that's when we'll see large scale Future Combat Systems tier modernization programs.

>autocannons/DEW drone defense on most AFV's with dedicated SPAAAG for C-UAS
>EW fucking everywhere
>Vehicle temperature camo that can make vehicles hard to spot on thermals mixed with stealth angling to reduce RCS
>Infantry with fuel cells wearing uniforms that can do the same thermal trick mixed with material that gives off different thermal emissions to serve as camo on the thermal spectrum
>drones to kill drones with massive first strike salvos intended just to eliminate the enemies drone salvo
>the world developing ground based GPS due to constant ASAT warfare
>lt. fuckface calling in a hypersonic missile strike using an analog field phone because radios are too dangerous to use
>conscription back on the menu because the bodycount even against near peer threats will be WWII/Korea levels

F U T U R E

>>65310605
FPV drones in lebanon are like snipers. They produce a morale effect by random unavoidable casaulties that you can't confront directly

and just like snipers they are not decisive, they just harass. IDF still advances

>>65311450
>>65311454
Successful breaching is still dubious because you will be observed at all times throughout the depth of the breach stretching all the way back to the rear of the FEBA. But even if you succeed, the question becomes "can you capitalize on it?" Can you send multiple brigades through the breach and penetrate all the way into the enemies operational rear areas on narrow frontages while rolling up the enemies lines? Or will you get trapped in a cauldron and either forced to fall back or risk getting encircled?

Yes, we've seen breaches been conducted in Ukraine. But they all resulted in cauldrons and eventual reversal of gains.

>>65311472
The way FPVs currently work are less responsive than normal artillery fires, rely on familiarity with terrain and bespoke logistics chains. They are especially suitable for the static warfare in Ukraine

Future drone swarms will be different, but current FPV drones are not as effective once you've breached the main obstacle

>>65311479
That's what the OP was saying. But how do we really know? I assume the Army has been dicking with scenarios during NTC rotations to see what would happen but how accurate could those results be?

File: 1783487091430911.png (396 KB, 547x365)

396 KB PNG

Are paratroopers more relevant now that their niche in cutting through the defenses of no-man's land to drop directly on top of artillery and drone ops alike has become more attractive?
They could even use drones themselves to make up for their lack of heavy equipment by landing control teams ahead of the main formation to sling FPVs into enemy heavy assets.

>>65310757
30mm flak cannons already exist

>>65311552
no they are less relevant than ever because drones do the job better and helicopters / planes are more vulnerable than ever.

>>65311552
maybe if the breach was already established. Nobody wants their very own hostomel.

>>65311552
In 20 years, we'd be dropping terminators.

As for now, just drop drones. Drones can interdict.

>>65311450
>Drones are not a game changer, in Ukraine they are mostly an artillery replacement.
>boomers adamantly want to stay in the past
Drones ARE THE GANE CHANGER.
Never such weapons existed that can hit and penetrate moving tanks over the horizon range and it costs pennies.
Tactics before drones
>select tanks, attack click move, lolololo *tactical breakthrough achieved*
Tactics after drone
>try to select tanks, they are already destroyed, combined warfare meeme falls appart

>>65311668
hitting and penetrating tanks over the horizon has been possible since the 80s, Ukraine did it before FPV drones....

Didn't the Taliban manage to survive drone saturation in spite of having no drones themselves? Guerilla tactics seem like the way to go.

File: 1829399303.jpg (608 KB, 1070x1699)

608 KB JPG

>>65311479
>but current FPV drones are not as effective once you've breached the main obstacle
Boomer retard
Learn to kite, nub.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/28/the-drone-operators-who-halted-the-russian-armoured-vehicles-heading-for-kyiv

>>65311682
2022 drone use is nothing at all like, not resembling at all 2026/ Plus you're reading a puff piece from the early war where no one really knew what was going on.

>>65311552
>Are paratroopers more relevant now that their niche
No.
Paratroopers are defenseless against drones.
Before drone revolution you can drop paratroopers and cover then with air support, so enemy heavy assets: artillery, tanks would be mostly out of fight and paratroopers armed with small arms and light support weapons would be fighting against similar armed infantry. With better quality of paratroopers and temporal numbers superiority paratroopers can fight in favorable for them terms.
Today paratroopers would be swarmed with FPV drones air support can't stop, and no matter how elite and good in infantry combat they are, they would be just meat for drones.
Only possible way to conduct maneuver in the age of drones is to have AFVswith with solid AA capabilities that provide air defense "bubble" against drones and such AFVs are not really feasible for paratroopers due to weight and size constraints of air delivery.

>>65311672
>hitting and penetrating tanks over the horizon has been possible since the 80s
With Israeli Tammuz missiles, other countries didn't have. And these Tammuz missiles are basically today's drones only extremely overpriced.

>>65311700
no with drone corrected artillery, like decimated tanks in 2022 before FPV drones....

and with the many many types of top attack artillery guided or cluster based

>>65311695
interceptor drones will create a bubble and they will be not be logistically heavy, they can also be resupplied by dumping hundreds of them out the back of a c130 from 25 km away while you destroy enemy attempts to do the same with high and fast aircraft that are immune to drones

>>65310588
>"couldn't happen to us" he says, on day 130 of the 24 hour special military operation in Iran

>>65311683
>2022 drone use is nothing at all like, not resembling at all 2026
That is the point. These first humble steps of drones were nevertheless extremely effective against pounderous clumsy tank columns using kite tactics. Hitting them over and over, with outdated tanks not able to fight off these attacks.

Transport 2026 drone tech into 2022 against Russian Kyiv convoy and it would look like Russians are attacked by Aliens.

>>65311706
Artillery is very bad against tanks.

>>65311718
not true

File: we are very lucky that th(...).jpg (91 KB, 1128x730)

91 KB JPG

>>65311718
Wrecked plenty of russian tanks tho.
Which is impressive stupidity on their part, given how permissive ukrainian terrain is.

>>65311718
Depends. In a traditional pitched battle where tanks can roll up into their visual range and one-shot them with their direct-fire weapons, artillery is effectively just a worse platform for big gun to big gun combat. But drones allow the artillery to notice armor before they can achieve the charge period to contest them, giving them the first strike in an engagement to their favor.
Tanks are actually pretty good at squishing drone controllers if they manage to get past their screens, but that's a very big if.

>>65311721
Ukraine terrain is not permisive you have to stick to roads for most of the year

>>65311722
>Depends. In a traditional pitched battle where tanks can roll up into their visual range and one-shot them with their direct-fire weapons, artillery is effectively just a worse platform for big gun to big gun combat

what the fuck are you talking about, artillery is an indirect fire weapon this is not red alert 2

>>65311709
Anon whatever frone drone tech you can fit into dozen Infantry Squad Vehicles would be completely overmatched in capabilities by drone defense tech you can fit into hundred tanks/IFVS/APCs.
You much better roll heavy air defense maxxing, then trying run light (you can't outrun a drone).

And for doing deep interdiction in the drone era. See Ukrianians blockading Russian logistics in Crimea using mid range drones alone. It's feasible and much easier to do than trying paratroopers. Imagine Ukrianians try to execute tactical air mobile insertions into Crimea. It will instantly turn into Benny Hill show of Russian FPVs chasing these poor troops.

>>65311732
paratroopers aren't for rear interdiction like ww2, they are for joint forced entry which is not the same thing at all and is less vunlerable to drones because you can concentrate support ontop of it

>>65311721
You need expend 1000 times more recources (unironically) to kill one tank with artillery comparing to using FPV drones. This is why it's called Drone Revolution.

>>65311744
you are wrong you can hit a tank with two unguided rounds corrected with a mavic that is cheaper than an FPV drone and also way more flexible

FPV drones take 3 or 4 people to sortie one drone and it has to fly 15 minutes to the target if they dont get lost

an artillery battery can decimate two infantry patrols in one barrage that are 50km apart without repositioning

>>65311737
>for joint forced entry
Main thing about strategy is to make fight on your own terms.
Favorable terms ind the drone era is air defense maxxing. Paratroopers are completely shit in this area. Using paratroopers you set fight on bad terms for yourself.

>>65311749
you sound like you really just don't know what you're talking about.....

>>65311744
>1000 times more
Shells don't cost millions.
The cost of a 155m shell is in the same order of magnitude as an anti-armor drone, low thousands. Both are unlikely to complete the mission with just one munition, but without reliable statistics it's impossible to say which method is cheaper. Nevertheless, their cost-performance is very similar.

File: pgk-image5.gif (55 KB, 566x506)

55 KB GIF

>>65311747
>Boomers making things up to defend their outdated weapons and tactics

>>65308785
Air Superiority into SEAD into Air Supremacy into uncontested precision air strikes.

The reason Ukraine is a quagmire is because both sides suck at airwar and failed utterly to gain air control and so are unable to CAS into position and have to content themselves flinging what amounts to complicated artillery from deep behind their own lines.

Drones remain a non-threat to high speed fixed wing aviation and a drone capable of engaging a fighter bomber is itself going to be a big enough target for the fighter bombers to see and shoot back at.

Air power is going to remain king until we stratosphere hopping SSTO combat space craft that can shoot down at them from above.

There is no advantage like high ground advantage, simply because when you are up high natures most powerful force works for you and your weapons and works against them and their weapons.

>>65311753
Only artillery rounds have 100-200 meters CEP (against stationary target) and drones have 1 m CEP against moving target.

>>65311764
Wrong. Go away, everything you say is wrong and stupid.

>>65311765
You concession is accepted.

>>65311726
The entire North Korean expedition consisted of unsupported artillery units that ended up getting mogged by Ukie tanks.

>>65311762
>Air power is going to remain king

Air power is only liked because the west can fight low casualty/commitment wars with it
And then lose them but the objective was never the point

>>65311718
FASCAAM and BONUS said hi.

File: 1780505776151300.png (127 KB, 600x436)

127 KB PNG

more artillery. it's really that simple. for a single attack on a single position you need 100s of tubes firing constantly not only on the target but the adjacent positions and behind the target. then fire smoke rounds to cover the entire battlespace in smoke. notably a requirement for modern artillery
is that it needs to outrange FPVs. but nobody wants to develop such a system, nobody wants to use such a system because it's le expensive to "waste" tens of thousands of rounds to capture a single position. Instead militaries are just buying "precision" high tech weapons that cost 100x as much.

>>65316894
They are just overpriced drones.

>>65317687
But how do you stop the enemy from seeing the huge convoy of artillery guns driving towards the front line and sending a few of those gorillion-dollar smart munitions to wipe them all out while they're still setting up?

>>65317892
distractions, ruse de guerre, send them piecemeal not in a convoy, packed in shipping containers, at night, whatever it takes. develop artillery with longer range so it's further behind the frontline.

>>65318076
>send them piecemeal not in a convoy
giving the enemy even more time to react
>packed in shipping containers
if you stack up hundreds of shipping containers at a frontline depot, they're going to get hit no matter what's inside them
>at night
thermals can still see you at night
>develop artillery with longer range so it's further behind the frontline
those already exist and they're called missiles

posting in a designated brown cope thread

>>65317687
smoke simply doesn't work against an observation drone that can adjust its height/angle/get closer/etc

precision weapons that cost 100x as much are cheaper than unguided weapons that never hit a target..

File: d650ad54f18c18ec767b77788(...).jpg (76 KB, 1503x761)

76 KB JPG

I've been meaning to read through this thread properly and maybe make a decent contribution or reply to something. But I haven't. Anyway.

>>65311461
>Vehicle temperature camo that can make vehicles hard to spot
not gonna happen

>>65322645
I mean, BAE systems showcased that shit like a decade ago. My assumption has been that since we were mostly fighting third worlders there wasn't much incentive to make armored vehicles even more expensive. I'm sure now they're reassessing that stance.

File: tank abrams crash out.png (919 KB, 1162x586)

919 KB PNG

>>65311440
Pretty much this. People have to understand that in Ukraine. The trenches are mostly static, positions are mostly known, and support elements are heavily developed and are typically within pretty short range. It's not like a drone team can just whip out hundreds of FPV drones out of their ass to blow up entire battalions worth of enemy armor. They need to be set up, bunkers or hidesites established. Supplies stocked/stashed, and resupply running at a high tempo in order to create the effects we see in Ukraine.

The goal is not to have nonstop perfect defense against drones. The goal is to create windows within time and space that give you the advantage to make a thrust or breach and exploit that breach in a local area. If the operational picture becomes much more about maneuver with battlespaces or engagement zones stretching out dozens of kilometers in all directions with forces constantly moving and hiding and repositioning then drones become drastically less effective. They'll still be there, but it's not going to be dudes hiding out in bunkers with repeaters set up everywhere launching drones constantly at known targets or positions where the enemy will be. It will be small groups with very limited supplies with near zero support assets set up and no clear direction where to even attack or to look for the enemy. If you can make the breach and successfully exploit it, then the game starts to look more similar to WWII or how the Cold War gone hot was imagined i.e. battalions moving dozens of kilometers pulling off super flanks from out of nowhere in hasty meeting engagements with maybe at most a few hours of early warning to dig a few shell scrapes.

Maneuver and aggression is still key. Just like the Iran-Iraq war, people have made the mistake in thinking that the Russo-Ukraine war is the F U T U R E when in reality it's just the two violent retards on the playground getting in a slap fight.

>>65323480
Meant for
>>65311450
Whoops

>>65323480
>>65311682

>>65323480
>muh maneuver
Nobody demonstrated better.
Israel advances in Lebanon at snail speed , hit by fiber optics drones constantly.
USA flat out decided to not engage in ground war with Iran. And for good reason , Abrams tanks having no anti drones defenses aren't gonna pull out Desert Storm again (USA was forced to abandon green zone in Baghdad not be able to defend against quad drones even fortress).

>>65323668
>hit by fiber optics drones constantly.

the fiber optics have not stopped them going anywhere they want, simply produced random casualties

Armies used to have a higher percentage of casualties from diarrhea than the IDF has taken from FPV drones

File: img_55-2.jpg (77 KB, 700x493)

77 KB JPG

>>65323696
>the fiber optics have not stopped them going anywhere they want
If advancing 1/4 mile per day is what you want (unironically WWI tempo).

>>65323704
They are advancing carefully into complicated terrain to minimize casualties, they are not having their logistics destroyed and maneuver elements helplessly picked apart

The IDF is experiencing much much less casualties than in previous wars where they advanced much faster and bolder using mechanized forces over stretches of desert or whatever

>>65323540
>drones used to call for artillery fire against Russian parade formation
Not the best example.