Drones don't work against an army.
>>537900286It troubles me deeply that someones tax payer dollars were wasted to pay a glownigger to make that.Propaganda of old was kino and quite frankly timeless, everything this war has produced on both sides is the very definition of fake and gay.
>Drones don't work against an army.so it appears
>>537900286seems to be how it went in iran
>>537900286Seem to work pretty well. Drones only don't work if you have some blitzkrieg breakthrough and roll the enemy over with your tanks and airforce. If you're stuck in the trenches drones are the best thing to have
>>537900286They're now hiring poojeet shills for the Ukrainian army? Or are even normal ukies such dumb liars that they'd post garbage that goes completely against the reality?
Drones quite simply replace the frontline soldier holding trenches. Unless we an develop and rely on EMP weapons electronics will remain superior to the meat-infantry.
>>537901335A drone can't occupy a position just as much as a tank, jet or ship can't. You still need infantry only you just need less and it's basically a death sentence on a long enough timeline.
>>537901069>>537900286>>537901299>>537901335>>537901538crimea fuel status?
>>537901128Except Iran won
>>537901299reading comprehension on a nigger level
>>537901538Loitering munitions can almost guarantee a kill. Infantry holding a position can only aspire to a 1:1 KDR.
>>537902094You still need a poor bastard to occupy the space. Whether they have a positive or negative KD is irrelevant.
>>537902348Indeed, but in the future robots might be able to hold ground, who knows. But I doubt they'll ever fully replace human meat infantry
Use of small drones is the most significant military development since gunpowder. Just like gunpowder, it shakes things up completely by defeating existing defense tactics. Tank? Massive sitting duck. Body armor? Kek. Surface to air missiles? Too expensive, therefore easily overwhelmed. C-RAMS? Same. I can think of only 2 good defenses against drones and that's lasers and EMPs. And if those get developed to the point where they're actually practical to use, it renders nearly all modern weapons obsolete.
>>537902348>You still need a poor bastard to occupy the space.Do you? This ain't CoD where you capture their flag instantly win. You can just bleed the enemy out of funds and troops until they give up. Seems to be the current and future strat.
>>537902555If you want the land you've captured to be useful, you need to hold it with humans. You need humans to build entrenched positions, machine gun nests, place mortars, mines, and also you can now launch drones closer to the enemy so can strike further inland more easily. I mean technically you don't have to do anything, but you're not gonna win a war without gaining ground, you're just gonna hit them with drones indefinitely. But you can't hold off an advancing army through drones alone, you need all the things I mentioned that only infantry provides
>>537902555You still need something to occupy the space otherwise you're just completely giving up initiative. Drones on their own can't advance or defend a position. If they could Russia or Ukraine would be doing it.
>>537901612verboten
