>makes war mega boring and super gay
why

war has always been mega boring and super gay

>makes war mega boring and super gay
why

what if duckboards didn't exist

>>64023242 (OP)
Do not lose hope.

Drones are powerful weapons, but you can also literally shoot them, dudes on both sides in the war in Ukraine are literally shooting them down with regular hunting shotguns loaded with birdshot, it works if you're fast and perceptive enough.

Majority of soldiers prior to the 20th century shitted themselves to death
between the 20th and 21st century they were randomly killed by artillery without any warning or way to fight back in staging areas or on the march

and now for the rest of the 21st century they will die randomly to drones without any way to fight back or warning.

>>64025981
>Implying shitting yourself isn't based.

>>64023242 (OP)
t . raped in ass hole by drone chad

Which war was the most fun?
>all war is le b-
No gay responses

>>64026174
Toyota War

>>64026174
Korean War
>enemy is a different race
>pretty good scenery
>lots of shooting galleries
>good ol fashion dogfighting
>green army dude maxxing

Artillery remained the deadliest threat in both wars, accounting for roughly two‑thirds of combat casualties.

Small arms were the second leading cause, responsible for about one‑quarter to two‑fifths of wounds and deaths.

Mines, tanks, and edged weapons together comprised only a few percent of overall casualties—despite their prominence in tactical narratives.

Non‑combat factors (disease in WWI; burns, gas in WWII) also contributed significantly, especially where medical support was limited.

>>64025981
Artillery on staging areas was the unspoken killer of WW2 and Korea.

>Napoleonic war
Non‑combat deaths outnumbered battlefield deaths in most armies—on average, 55–70% of all military deaths were due to disease, wound infection, accidents, and captivity.

When soldiers did die in battle, artillery was the dominant killer, followed by musket fire, with cavalry/melee accounting for a small share.

>Confederate war
Disease was the deadliest “weapon”: nearly three in five Confederate fatalities came from illness or non‑battle causes.

Combat deaths formed about one‑third of all losses, and over 90% of those were shot by small arms rather than killed by artillery or melee.

Prison camps (notably Andersonville) exacted a heavy toll—roughly 9% of total Confederate deaths

>Prussian wars
Across all three conflicts, infantry small‑arms fire (muskets/needle guns/rifles) consistently accounted for roughly 80–90% of battlefield casualties.

Artillery—despite its growing technological sophistication—remained a secondary but still significant killer (10–20% of combat casualties).

Cavalry and close‑combat weapons (sabers, bayonets) and other causes (mines were not in wide use) together made up only a few percent and are not shown above.

>Russo-Japanese
Combat deaths exceeded disease deaths on both sides—a turning point from earlier 19th‑century wars
Australian Water Manager
.

Artillery became the single deadliest arm, reflecting improvements in range, accuracy and volume of fire.

Machine‑guns (small arms) proved devastating against massed assaults, foreshadowing WWI tactics.

Cavalry and close‑combat played a diminishing role as firepower dominated the battlefield

>Pirate 1600-1700 engagements
Artillery (ship’s cannon) and small arms together accounted for 50–65% of pirate battle injuries and deaths.

Melee weapons (cutlass/axe) were especially lethal in boarding actions—roughly 20–25% of combat casualties.

Drowning/ship loss was a significant non‑weapon cause, often when a vessel was sunk or disabled.

Secondary hazards (fires, powder‑magazine explosions) added a smaller but deadly risk

>Ukraine
Artillery dominance (early war): In 2022–23, both sides relied heavily on tube artillery and mortars—several analysts estimated that up to 80% of combat fatalities stemmed from indirect fire
TIME
.

Drone revolution (mid‑2024 onward): As thousands of loitering munitions and kamikaze‑style quadcopters flooded the front, Western sources now credit attack drones with roughly four‑fifths of battlefield casualties
Attack drones have become the war’s deadliest arm, responsible for roughly 80% of combatant deaths as of mid‑2025.

Artillery & mortars remain a lethal baseline—particularly in static, trench‑style fighting—and were dominant early in the invasion.

Traditional infantry arms (rifles/MGs) and explosive devices (mines, IEDs) now account for only a fraction of battlefield fatalities.

>>64026174
nam

>>64023347
Yes, and the drone wife and drone children will have to press F to pay respects. You dumb dense motherless person. When drones get shot, they only lose a few hundred bucks at most. No pilot have to be rescued. No POW who will be paraded for propaganda. Oth, drones can kill humans and even capture them for POW and propaganda or at the very least generate kino webms for our usement. Do you not understand this?

Akshally they make war interesting again
The name "drone" isn't good though, I would call them the REDEEMERs

>>64026631
Thats what happens when the pilots get raped and tortured to death for being honorless scum.

>>64026646
Get that hipoly render out of my face.
Also UT2k4 redeemer design was peak

>>64026174
The Hyperwar

>DRONE R JUST IEDZ, AND I FOOKING HAET IEDZ
Good. How does /k/ feel about drones making Instagram SOF seethe?

https://youtu.be/EUTh5ajH2yE?t=559

>>64026631
So fucking what for any of this? You aren't replacing footsoldiers with drones, you hypersped, small drones like these are a weapon for infantry to use against enemy infantry, and it can work well but it can also be countered.

I hope you get raped by a wild pack of Siggers.

Already happened.

>yet another vanilla milquetoast "drone make war boring" thread
is it bots doing this?

>>64023242 (OP)
They've got a far higher skill ceiling than rifles, what are you casual?

all of humanity should ban drones, just as they did chemical weapons.

>>64023242 (OP)

The Nintendo generation has reached the battlefield.

>>64023242 (OP)
>makes war mega boring and super gay
why?

>>64027469
you can still get cover from machineguns and indirect. and expensive air power isn't a 24/7 thing. with drones, there's no cover other than bunkers, and they're nonstop all the time.

they literally need to be banned and are equivalent to chemical and tactical nuclear weapons when used on an industrial scale.

>>64027592
OK Ivan

>>64027594
>ivan
ukrainians are suffering under the same. i was watching them talk online how they can't even drive along roads well away from the front because drones are nonstop. roads, fields, towns, everything is turned into killing fields.

in the end, the nation with the biggest industry wins under these rules, and WE don't have that.

>>64027600
If you're worried about waves of Chinesium drones then there are workarounds for that.

>>64027603
any counters will be countered themselves; ukraine and russia try their best to stop them, but they aren't stopping. and industrial output determines the outcome. land, sea and air will be simply drones. hence, they should be seen like chemical or nuclear weapons, as their effects are the same. there's also the fact that many nations will use hk ai without human input.

sometimes letting things out of the box isn't for the best interest of everyone.

>>64027600
How about they sign a fucking treaty then instead of this BS war? They clearly can't win back the taken territories.

>>64027603
The only realistic workaround are autonomous sentries with algorithmic target detection, aka AI turrets. Except they cost more than a drone and always will, but can be destroyed by a single aerial or ground drone provided it's sneaky enough, or by manned land forces.
>inb4 just make the turret shoot the conscripts trying to disable it autonomously
All the political good will your side has garnered will evaporate in a couple of days. There is one thing everyone agrees on and it's that bots shouldn't kill people all by themselves

>>64027605
Ukraine/Russia is not a suitable comparison to NATO/China. Ukraine is struggling partly due to the 'David vs Goliath' nature of the conflict (in terms of size rather than quality on Russia's part), and because honestly it is just in NATO's/America's interest to turn that war into a decades long, expensive and embarrassing, quagmire for Russia. If China tries to kick off WW3 then their economy, which their industry and military depend on entirely, ceases to exist within about 24 hours - at best for them. Yes it would also cause problems for NATO/America, problems that would cause significant damage for decades to come, but it would wipe China out before the war really started. China knows that, that's why they limit themselves to saber rattling and posturing for domestic consumption and hoping for America to take its eye off the ball.

>>64027612
You're thinking on the tactical/theatre level. If it's a full on war with a near peer opponent then that is fought, won, and lost almost entirely on the strategic level.

>>64023242 (OP)
> armored vehicles become heavily armed landships with multiple means of active defense to survive the munitions thrown at them

I hope you see the vision anon

>>64026271
>Australian Water Manager
Huh

Flying stuff always make war boring and gay
>1794, Battle of Fleurus, first recorded use of a hot air balloon in warfare. Used in an observation role.
>WW1, airplanes start out in a scouting role, then evolve into dedicated fighter planes and bombers that make trenches *almost* obsolete, this happens closer to the end of the war
>ww2, bombers destroy most of Europe during the war, close air support is a thing
>Korean war, jet fighters introduced, new era of aircraft, dogfighting nearly ends with this war
>Vietnam, helicopters make their way into the battlefield, American forces can land and deploy pretty much anywhere, gunships become enter their infancy at the start of the conflict and become what they are today by the end of it, glorified rocket carriers.
>Gulf war, an F-15E takes out a Hind gunship with a laser guided bomb, flying stuff enters its retard era where stuff like the ac-130 have a field day obliterating brown people with no air defense
>War in the Ukraine, drones become cheap and effective enough to the point where they completely dominate the battlefield, 90% of footage from this conflict is from the perspective of a drone blowing up a zigger or a hohol with a hand grenade
Feel free to correct me, I drank 11 white claws before this and didn't look anything up

>>64027643
That tank is smoking a cigarette

>>64027643

>>64026271
>and over 90% of those were shot by small arms rather than killed by artillery

Why was Union artillery so shit

>>64026235
>Mines, tanks, and edged weapons together comprised only a few percent of overall casualties—despite their prominence in tactical narratives.
That's because those are not intented as killing weapons.
Mines are area denial weapons, and unless the enemy commander is an merciless retard cause maybe one or two casualties per minefield
Tanks are breaching weapons and intented against enemy vehicles and structures
Edged weapons exist mostly as utility tools rather than weapons

>>64023246
#truthnvke. All the "war is... le hell!" jerkoff is a sneaky way to get teenage boys wanting to enlist and prove they're tough enough - I personally fell for this only to quickly realise that the real army is just sucking off some fuckwit corporal 24/7

>>64023242 (OP)
It actually does the opossite can you imagine the footage we'd have in these things were invendted 80 years ago? you rarely get to see invaters literal expressions of regret right before the kill feed and then see their demise from another drone from overwatch position.

normally you'd just get a news report and grainny ass satelite image of the Russian planes burning but with the drones we got to practically almost witness it live

>>64026174
Spanish-American
Grenada

>>64027469
Machineguns were always based, which is why we've long since been in an age of every infantryman having a fully automatic weapon. Every grunt has a machinegun as their main weapon, I think it's pretty fair and also really badass, it's a match of a loud storm of lead dotted with precision shots.

>>64027592
>with drones, there's no cover other than bunkers,
Literally wrong lol.

>and they're nonstop all the time
Also wrong lol. Also you can shoot drones down, if you've really got to you can even try to shoot one down with a common infantry rifle, and it might even work out.

>>64027600
>in the end, the nation with the biggest industry wins under these rules
You're ignoring so many other fucking factors and weapons lmao. What the fuck is one of these small cheap drones gonna do towards say, a fucking A10 Warthog? That's not even a fucking modern plane, they're phasing it out, but it can fly way higher than these drones can reach and shit down a storm of 30mm and rockets on enemies.