If you look at their disadvantages compared to other weapon systems (rockets, shells, bullets, ATGMs etc), there's plenty of flaws to be found
>lower fire rate (a team can operate only a few drones at a time)
>inferior speed (which also means they can be spotted more easily)
>limited payload due to weight limitations
>have to be extra-aware of their surroundings (if they bump into shit they are knocked off balance, which is why they are optimal in open fields)
>can be intercepted by EW (unless they are fyber optic, in which case on the other hand they can get tangled in objects even easier), EMPs, laser etc
>limited range (due to battery life, signal, fyber optic lenght)
>can be shot down more easily due to their lower speed (think multishot or automated systems)
>susceptible to weather (heavy rain, wind, hail etc)
>Kamikaze ones are mono-use, bomber ones highly imprecise
>still by far costlier than shells and ammo and rockets and RPGs
Their main advantages are
>Manoeuvrability
>Versatilty
>Psychological effect (mainly due to their novelty, like gas in ww1)
And that's about it. They certainly have a place in warfare and adjustements will be needed to counter them but are by no means the be all and end all here to replace all other weapon systems as some say.

My bet is that some military at some point will bet too heavily on them while forgetting they can't quite do what shells, rockets, atgms and bullets do.

drones are superior to ATGMs right and far cheaper than something like javelin

>>511026384
Fpbp

>>511026287 (OP)
Retard alert. Drones > Flesh. Its that simple. If its you vs a drone you are going to die. We have all seen the videos. They are also extremely effective and rendering million dollar tanks and APCs useless. That alone says drones are here to stay and you are a retard,

>>511026384
Not in fire rate, speed, susceptibility to weather, EW, shotdowns etc., cost may very depending on which ATGM we are talking about
>>511026523
Bullets, shells, rockets > flesh too, mutt. And they do it with almost none of the drawbacks save manoeuvrability. Maybe I should have written something simples cause mutts can't understand their own language, apparently.

>>511026287 (OP)
they have disadvantages but i think they have incredible cost to efficiency ratio. a 400 dollars drone can make a soldier that costed lots of money to create and arm into fertilizer

>>511026655
So can a shell or a bullet for a fraction of the drone's cost

>>511026287 (OP)
Is this a parody?
Half the things you say aren't remotely true.

>>511026737
Not an argument, everything I have said is true and can be verified.

>>511026709
>bullet
yeah, after you get your pawns into shooting range where they get shot at and die
retarded argument because you only count bullet cost and ignore 'delivery mechanism'
>shell
no

>>511026287 (OP)
They are rock bottom cheap, a Nintentoddler can operate them natively, and function as the ultimate guided munition

>>511026287 (OP)
Plastic boomerang grenades scare me more than drones.

>>511026709
well a shell needs the artillery piece and it cant change course once on the air at least the normal shells. and a bullet needs a guy there to shoot it exposing him.

drones is just a car with 2 guys going somewere and sending them from a protected area.

theres a reason they are used in massive numbers, if shells were better they would be producing shells non stop

>>511026807
>>511026822
You both seem to ignore that drone operators are going to be mostly operating within the frontline as well (and will thus be exposed to risks as higher priority targets) and that soldiers with guns WILL need to be on the frontline regardless as drones can't hold ground
Also specifically
>>511026822
>if shells were better they would be producing shells non stop
They are, for a variety of reasons (cost, range, explosive payload, speed, no susceptibility to weather/EW/shotdowns/natural obstacles) which is why Russia is STILL producing loads of them monthly, while Ukraine's own industry isn't quite what it used to be for obvious reasons, and its western backers can't as they sent the bulk of their own military industry down to the whorehouse 3 decades ago

>>511026287 (OP)
>lower fire rate (a team can operate only a few drones at a time)
thats not even true, Russia and Ukraine regularely send Hundreds and plan up to 2000 drones per day droneswarms.
Moscow is regularely attacked by 400+ drones.
>inferior speed
some of these drones reach very high speeds and are jet powered like the Geran 2.
>limited payload due to weight limitations
a geran can carry a 250kg explosive.
>have to be extra-aware of their surroundings
they can fly at all heights and at all speeds and they will even get you in the woods as the Ukraine war has shown.
>can be intercepted by EW
in practice the EW is very rare and never there where its needed.
EW also has its limitations and as soon as you turn it on you basically tell everyone where you are.
>limited range
there are already solar powered drones and the ones running on gas can easily reach distances of 2000km like the Geran.
>susceptible to weather
the weather that prevents these drones is very rare.
>Kamikaze ones are mono-use, bomber ones highly imprecise
also not true, a Geran has a CEP of like 5 meters and small quadrocopters can easily drop a tiny bomb into your tank through the open hatch.
>still by far costlier than shells
still cheaper than an entire artillery system.

>>511026811
Bullets and shells are cheaper still
>>511026812
Niggerchink hybrids scare me more than boomerang grenades

Filling the hype meter is how you win a war

>>511027022
>drone operators are going to be mostly operating within the frontline
also not true, they already use drones as repeaters or glue starlink to them.
a drone operator can fly the thing from anywhere.

>>511026629
Fire rate and speed are kinda moot if you have a high miss rate anyway. They were apparently a pain to shoot out unless you had a shotgun. They had to make rifle based ammo for that very reason. Weather is a bitch to all equipment and adds to the fog of war. Fiber optic based drones also reduced many of the issues where they become a sort of mobile mines with eyes. They take less power too as they don't have to do tx/rx for video via wireless comms. They can idle for long until detection. They are cheaper than what most euros and americas shoot out in terms of high grade artillery, missiles, and medium explosives. Even with a smaller package they are more precise and a pilot can control multiple once in a network. 400$ vs 30000$

>>511026791
>lower fire rate (a team can operate only a few drones at a time)
AI drones don't even need an operator.
>inferior speed (which also means they can be spotted more easily)
Compared to what? So what if you spot one
? Whatcha gonna do about it? Send your last moments crying?
>limited payload due to weight limitations
There are hexacpoter flying cars. If they only need to carry a HEAT RPG warhead then that's all they need to lift.
>have to be extra-aware of their surroundings (if they bump into shit they are knocked off balance, which is why they are optimal in open fields)
You obviously haven't watched any drone vids which explains your full-spectrum ignorance.
>can be intercepted by EW (unless they are fyber optic, in which case on the other hand they can get tangled in objects even easier), EMPs, laser etc
Plenty of hits through massive EW, which again you'd know if you'd watched any drone vids. Fiber optic drones carry the fiber so they can't get tangled in anything. Think about it FFS.
>limited range (due to battery life, signal, fyber optic lenght)
Only the most advanced and expensive artillery can match them for range.
>can be shot down more easily due to their lower speed (think multishot or automated systems)
There's fuck all videos of them being shot down - a tiny fraction of 1%. Your imaginary automated turrets will do fuck all against their radial velocity if they spiral in.
>susceptible to weather (heavy rain, wind, hail etc)
As is everything.
>Kamikaze ones are mono-use, bomber ones highly imprecise
Suicide drones are suicide drones. Well spotted. They're far more accurate than anything but laser-guided (hugely expensive) shells.
>still by far costlier than shells and ammo and rockets and RPGs
NATO was paying ****$8,400**** per dumb shell last time they gave a price. ATGMs like Javelin are $100k per missile and another quarter mil for the launcher and have far less range.
You're talking out your 'hole, m80.

>>511026287 (OP)
ok retard. you wont sing that tune int he trenches will you faggot? youll piss and shit yourself and cry for mommy. wish you were on 4chan shitposting your retard drivel.

>>511027028
>some of these drones reach very high speeds and are jet powered like the Geran 2.
I forgot to add FPV in title, those long range drones fullfill a different role and have more advantages in those regards
Srill
>Russia and Ukraine regularely send Hundreds and plan up to 2000 drones per day
Dumb counterpoint, artillery can fire way more shells than that daily
>they will even get you in the woods
Their efficacy drops in wooded or urban areas, all it takes them is hitting a branch to get knocked off balance- obstacle-rich environments are their bane
>weather that prevents these drones is very rare.
Not true, moderate rain alone can greatly impact their visibility and strong winds make lighter models nearly unusable, only large repurposed agrarian ones like the Ukrainian Baba Yaga can fare decently there
>and small quadrocopters can easily drop a tiny bomb into your tank through the open hatch.
They can't, those drops are very imprecise, you only form the opposite opinion due to selection bias after seeing the published fraction of drops that succeed on already immobilized tanks

>>511026629
they are simply more effective and get more done. you are very stupid. do you think they would not just crank out 1 million atgm instead of drones if they were better? god damn you stupid fucking nigger you hvae to DIE SOON

you're a worthless BLACK NIGGER ITALIAN, NOT A BATTLEFIELD COMMANDER

YOU DONT EVEN HAVE AG UN. YOU HAVE NEVER FIRED A GUN. YOU EAT PASTA AND SUCK COCK.

>>511026629
WHO FIRES THE ATGM DUMB COCKSUCKER? THEY ARE DEAD BY A DRONE BEFOR ETHEY GET CLOSE. YOU STUPID FUCKING NIGGER YOUR WROTHLESS YOU MAKE ME SICK

>>511027069
Yeah psychological effect is one of their main strenghts as seen by all the easily impressionable retards panicking here
>>511027088
Most drone squads operate within the frontline

>>511027306
>I forgot to add FPV in title
too late, drones are drones.
>artillery can
assuming you have any artillery in range of moscow to begin with.
>all it takes them is hitting
they usually explode anyway, and it you are anywhere near it say goodbye to your limbs.
>moderate rain
its not raining all that much in ukraine.
>They can't
they literally can and there are dozens such videos showcasing this.

>>511026287 (OP)
shotguns are not allowed per Geneva convention and all the other solutions you gave don't compete with the cost and the production time vs drones.
The only think plausible would be modern flak ammunitions or guns but that takes time to develop and test. And we aren't testing it right now in the current wars, just building drones.

>>511027397
>Most drone squads operate within the frontline
for now, in the future they wont and the distance from drone operator to frontline keeps increasing.

>>511027466
shotguns are useless, ok you aim up and shoot at an FPV thats coming at you at an angle with a speed of 130km/h.
even if you hit it it will continue on its way and explode near you and send shrapnel up your ass.

>>511027187
Fire rate, speed, payload delivery, cost, susceptibility to all that stuff etc all even out with that higher miss rate which the drone trades by, lowering it while increasing everything else
>Weather is a bitch to all equipment
Yeah but it doesn't stop shells and bullets from flying, that's my point
>They are cheaper than what most euros and americas shoot out in terms of high grade artillery, missiles, and medium explosives
Yeah I agree that our mics have a tendency to make everything hyper expensive which is why state issued fpvs within our armed forces will likely be a lor costlier than Alibaba drones slavshits are flinging at each other

>>511026629
You’re fucking retarded. We are literally seeing this play out in live time in the Ukraine where they are taking $500 hobby drones, 3d printing canisters to drop munitions that all in is running $1500 and are having more success than a javelin that’s $250k for the launcher and $200k per missile.

>>511026287 (OP)
>some military at some point will bet too heavily on them
a roboarmy, or army of drones operated by a supervising ai will be unbeatable
it's not just about flying shit, it's about all kinds of unmanned vehicles
humans are inferior to robots

>>511027529
The results are already there. Check the Russian hospital data that some leaked. Most of the damage has been drones for some time now. Weather reduces troop movement that carry the guns, you know that. We are still in Gen 1 too as the Ruskies copy the Iranian fellas. Even added a german siren sound on impact for more flavor.

>>511027511
>tell me you dont know what a shotgun shoots without telling me nogun euro
not all shotguns are all slugs, majority are birdshot or buckshot.

>>511027511
Not completely useless needs a stronger gauge. Ole pirate shot with a terminator gun would work well. You may still need to dodge if its right on your ass, that's true.

>>511027291
>AI drones
Most FPVs aren't controlled by AI, you're talking our of your ass
>Compared to what
Shells, bullets, anything that doesn't move so slow it can be shot down or disabled via EW
>If they only need to carry a HEAT RPG warhead
That's a fraction of they payload of a shell, you also seem to be mishmashing various drone types, such as quadrocopters, mostly kamikazes, and agricultural ones mostly used for dropping
>obviously haven't watched any drone vids
Potatonigger is too stupid to understand how drones work in environments full of obstacles
>There's fuck all videos of them being shot down
Objects flying at a few dozen km/h are much easier to shoot down than a shell
>As is everything
Heavy winds don't stop shells from flying, you actual retarded faggot, you really are just spewing random shit
>NATO was paying
Russia, China and NK aren't and their shells are far cheaper than their drones. If western mics make everything overpriced you can be sure FPVs will be equally overpriced

>>511027593
Yep, also the optics. No one cares if robowarrior gets blown up, not the same when GI Joe comes back in six different boxes.

>>511027293
I'd rather face a slow ass quadrocopter that can be seen and brought down with multishot or EW than an artillery barrage coming out of nowhere and pulverizing me, yes. I hope that if we ever happen to go at war enemy commanders will be as dumb and easily impressionable as you and entirely phase out artillery for drones and make things much easier.

>>511027777
and then the drone operator can upload the video of these GI joes getting ripped to shits which also has a negative effect on soldiers who see the footage reducing their morale.

>>511027809
but you wouldnt face a slow ass quadrocopter, you would first get bombed by artillery forcing you into cover, then they fly an FPV into your bunker and kill you.
if you survive it somehow thats when they send the slow quadropcopter to finish you off.

>>511027354
Your vagina is bleeding, mongrel
And yes, Russia produces more shells and bullets than drones
Ukraine can't really produce much of anything but drones rn, so their choice is kinda forced
>>511027383
Dumb mutt doesn't know drone pilots operate from near the frontline thus can get rekt too

>>511027354
I'm vehemently against this type of ad hominem argumentation but I'll make an exception in the case of OP who's a complete fucking retard.
TOTAL SHITALIAN DEATH.

>>511026287 (OP)
I have seen thousands instances of drone kino they seem pretty effective to me

>>511027816
>>511027841
>watches a bunch of tg vids thinks he knows war
typical

>>511027421
>too late
This is not a gotcha compilation
>and it you are anywhere near it say goodbye to your limbs
Given their usually limited payload you have to be fairly close for that to happen
>its not raining all that much in ukraine
This is about drones in war in general, not only Ukraine per se
>there are dozens
Do you understand the concept of selection bias? They don't publish the hundreds of misses cause no one wants to be bored out of their mind in seeing that, only the dozens of hits
>>511027511
Drones don't typically target soldiers at anywhere near that speed, they have to fly a lot slower if they want to have a chance to hit small moving targets
>>511027470
That's just a possibility
>>511027466
Banned by the Geneva convention is kind of a dumb gay idea, this war has demonstrated that gas would still work wonders against enemies entrenched in dugouts and bunkers, imo all cards should be on the table in a war including chemical warfare
Flak ammo is a good idea too, perhaps automated

>>511027546
You do realize that it's not just drones vs javelins, but drones vs rpgs, shells, bullets?
You take the costliest shit available and pretend that's the standard to compare it to, that's both stupid as shit and annoyingly dishonest, do not bother replying vermin, I'll just ignore you

>>511028022
Shotguns got banned because they were too effective and killed too many krauts, so the krauts cried and so when they tried again they wouldn't have to deal with it. Gas was agreed upon by the majority cause there is no counter to it and leads to civilian deaths.

>>511028022
>you have to be fairly close for that to happen
just a little bit of shrapnel is already enough to send you for weeks into a hospital.
this is assuming you get evacuated fast enough, if not your wounds will begin rotting and then they amputate your limbs.
>This is about drones in war in general
Ukraine is currently the only place where they get used a lot and where all the new developments in drone warfare happen.
>They don't publish the hundreds of misses
because there are barely none of these.
drones will get you anywhere.

Fire rate? What does fire rate matter when you have near guaranteed accuracy? Speed? They are faster then their prey and that is all that matters. Payload? They seem to do just fine against anything that explodes
>obstacle rich environments are their bane
Have you seen what these drones are capable of? They are fucking dizzying. Being in a forest or urban area is not going to help.
https://youtu.be/CheQOmNRVTc

>>511028081
to fire an RPG at a tank you have to be close enough to the tank that the tank can fuck you up.
with a drone you can be 50km away.

>>511026287 (OP)
Drones are just getting better and better. The Ukraine war has turned them from a specialized technology into a integrated weapons system with as much importance as artillery.
I can only imagine what the US had developed. Those gay Chinese swarms probably look like child's play compared to the systems developed by the US military.

>>511027634
Ukraine produces 150-200K drones (of all sorts from recon to kamikaze to bombers) per month and Russia loses 4-5K KIA soldiers per month to all sorts of weapons (the rate has been roughly the same since late 2022 when drones weren't commonplace) as per meduza iirc
Doesn't seem like drones are hyperlethal compared to previous systems (likely due to factors I mentioned in OP) and effective enemy kia are just a fraction of drones fieldes

>>511028130
>Ukraine is currently the only place where they get used a lot
Nagorno-Karabakh war? Please continue to provehow you only watch tg clips or clips here.

>>511026287 (OP)
oh no the jews win

>>511028081
Drones are the single most effective way when weighting for cost and mortality minimisation in destroying armoured vehicles.
Source: literally the Ukraine now where both sides figured this out.

>>511027841
I didn't say artillery isn't to be feared or that drones have no place in war.
In fact I said the said opposite
I think most people on this board can not read properly, they end up rephrasing what I just said while somehow attempting to disagree with me

>>511028212
>I can only imagine what the US had developed.
actually not much, USA is lagging behind hard in drone warfare.
they just now started training soldiers in using them.
also the drones that the US military purchases are extremely overpriced (over 40k USD per piece which costs like 500 in china).
there is also other stupid shit like the 2025 tank manual telling the soldier to wave his arms and shoot the main cannon at FPVs lmao

>>511028303
It's just that one retarded kraut anon.

high altitude tactical nuke detonations could knock out even fiber drones for hundreds of miles

>>511028253
are you illiterate or something?
do you think you are smart for only quoting half of my sentence and misunderstanding my post?
fat fucking retard kys

>>511028352
awww the poor kraut is mad and cant read good.

>>511028102
Both are gay ass excuses thoughever, if they are effective they should be used, the purpose of war is to win, not to have a posh tea party
>>511028130
>just a little bit of shrapnel is already enough to send you for weeks into a hospital.
Artillery can do that for a fraction of the cost and send a lot more shrapnel flying than a small charge. There's vids where one soldier gets hit and the one right besides him walks away unscathed, mos FPV drone charges are weak
>Ukraine is currently the only place where they get used
Are you being dense on purpose? My thread is about how drones will fare in wars in general
>because there are barely none of these
Because they don't get published, you don't understand what a selection bias is

>>511028303
artillery, drones, (hypersonic) cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and glidebombs are the kangs of the battlefield.

>>511028224
Ukies go through millions of shells a year, just shells and only kill 4-5k Ruskies(ruskie report?). Let alone the other munitions. How effective is any of it all really? The hospital reports at least show damage stats and at under 10% regular arms are kinda pitiful.

>>511028541
*4-5k a month

>>511026287 (OP)
Drones are cheap, small, and flying like a swarm of mosquitos. They're not supposed to compete with other weapons in firepower or speed or range. This simplistic thinking why shitalians can't win wars

>>511028498
>There's vids where one soldier gets hit and the one right besides him walks away unscathed
thats still a success, now the guy who didnt get hit has to carry the retard that got fucked up.
then they just send another drone and finish both of them off.
all to the price of a couple hundred bucks and with higher precision than artillery.
>Are you being dense on purpose?
are you as retarded as that other mutt that you cant read my entire sentence?
>Because they don't get published
thats just cope

>>511028156
>when you have near guaranteed accuracy?
150-200K drones/month per side, of all sorts
4-5K KIA/month per side, to all arms
They clearly don't have near total accuracy
Most replies here all are some sort of selection bias
>Why does speed matter
Because you can't spot an incoming shell from afar or target it
>Payload and fire rate
Can they level a city block in a few seconds like an artillery barrage can?

>>511028498
Shotguns are the epitome of cqc effectiveness. Shotguns shouldn't be banned because it's hard to kill a village with a shotgun on accident unlike gas.
So when war happens we should lose all empathy and turn into animals that kills everything? If that's the case why not start justifying nukes?

>>511028613
>Can they level a city block in a few seconds like an artillery barrage can?
no need when you can just fly the drone through a window killing dozens of people inside.
dont even need to destroy the building.

and if you really want the commieblock gone you just throw a couple 3000kg glidebombs on it.
whatever crawls out there can be finished off by a slow ass quadrocopter.

>>511028541
Tbf I don't think Ukraine ever managed to fire millions of shells per year
But yes within both systems only a fraction of strikes succeeds, in drones that fraction is higher at the cost of price, payload, fire rate etc, which is why it kinda evens out and why Ukraine roughly killed as many Russian soldiers when relying mainly on arty vs when relying on drones
Truth is both systems need to be balanced, but as you can see ITT some retards get easily impressed by gore vids and end up overhyping drones forgetting that massive artillery support is also needed and can't be phased out cause there's a lot of shit drones can't do

>>511026287 (OP)
and yet there is far more footage of soldiers dying to drones than any other methods. And many soldiers have personal goPro's.

>>511028606
Ok, you don't understand what selection bias is, I don't think there's much to add really

>>511028841
you are retarded and brown, you clearly dont understand much of anything.

>>511028676
>If that's the case why not start justifying nukes?
Nukes chiefly aren't used for fear of global escalation and MAD, not because of moral issues
With gas, no such excuses are needed, there's no reason not to use sarin against infantry in entrenched positions

>>511028878
and ur a dumb mad kraut that cant read so good.
dont you have an ukr tg full of drone clips you go jerk off too?

>>511028823
Because shells and bullets and FABs have no cameras mounted on them unlike drones.
Replies to this thread can be summed up as selection bias

>>511028912
nobody is talking to you fattie

>>511028937
>Because shells and bullets and FABs have no cameras mounted on them
drones are used for objective control you fucking retard.

>>511028912
They buckbreakings krauts got in the past centuries were so potent that now they can't reason at all, a sad, cautionary tale

>>511028806
Yea that's fair. Its interesting how the systems will change up. For one I didn't know it was gene convention violation for shottys as an americunt. That explains alot on aprehension and creation of rifle based anti-drone ammo. When the good ole 10 can bust through Artificial horrors and your hands!

>>511028899
In fact iirc Soviets made plans to drop tactical nukes like candy in case of a war if they were to rush the Fulda gap

>>511028899
I'm pretty sure if a country didn't launch an ICBM and instead via land means it wouldn't cause a MAD scenario but something major. They don't do it for moral reasons cause civilians would be punished and them too.

>>511029021
I wonder if Benelli will do some specific anti-drone platform, I really like their stuff and all my boomer uncles use benellis to hunt

>>511029042
Yeah, that's fair, it kinda opens pandora's box in that sense- then again, so did gunpowder, rapid fire guns, mechanized warfare, planes and now drones, so who knows maybe one day the nuclear pandora's box will be opened for good, or maybe we'll give another try to gas

>>511029117
All the smart krauts left before the wars.
>>511029021
We Americans are the reason it got put in the convention. We showed up in the WWI with shotguns and destroyed trench lines.

>>511026287 (OP)
>unless they are fyber optic, in which case on the other hand they can get tangled in objects even easier
the spool is on the drone you fucking retard

>>511026287 (OP)
Shoot down what drone? What do you think this is anime? Shooting a mobile flying object accurately is a nightmare

>>511029221
All the ones with high test perished afterwars, only the ones with high sóy content were left
>>511029237
Fpv pilots flying fyber optic ones literally state they have to fly flower due to the presence of said wiring, my abo friend

>>511029262
You do know they are much slower than shells, rockets and bullets, and have to approach small moving targets even more slowly lest they miss right? Look at vids of them targetting dismounted infantry, they never move at 100km/h as some here believe

>>511029315
Get an adult to draw you a picture of how a drone spooling fibre out behind it can't get hung up on anything you absolute mongoloid.
And stop making up lies you fucking clown.

>>511029315
Get an adult to draw you a picture of how a drone spooling fibre out behind it can't get hung up on anything you absolute mongoloid.
And stop making up lies you embarrassing fucking clown.

>>511029493
>>511029511
Doubleposting potatonigger is mad, go talk with the drone pilots saying the same stuff and that fyber optic wire is more susceptible to obstacles and sharp turns, not me

>>511029493
>>511029511
and fuck jannies.

>>511029534
Utter shite, there's videos of them flying around inside tank warehouses doing figure-8's around multiple columns multiple times.

>>511026287 (OP)
Their main advantages overshadow any flaws by far
Although obviously they won't replace conventional artillery, ATGMs etc

>>511026287 (OP)
They've changed warfare, such a cheap weapon can even threaten aircraft carriers worth billions.

>>511029546
Jew York City is Mordor tie4 holyshit

>>511027511
Good point

>>511026287 (OP)
Russia posted some statistics for its casualties on Zaporozhye direction and 75% were from drones, 20% from arty and 5% from being shot.
Imagine how fast Ukraine would lose if no drones.

You also forgot to mention that drones are extremely easy to produce, and can be made in appartment. that's not huge artillery guns that requires fields to maintain

>>511030858
Thats wild, I'm sure that similar percentages in Ukraine were killed by Russian drones

>>511026287 (OP)
so many points are just straight retarded so I wont even bother posting real arguments and just say you're retarded

>>511026287 (OP)
I watched a video on the topic and the conclusion was that mortar + drone scouting is more effective.

How to fight a drone:
Get a long, lightweight pole that splits into 4 and put a net there. Add a tranparent swat shield at the bottom. Have a guy hold it and keep it pointedat the drone.


The drone will get caught in the net and explode furhter away from the solider, with the shield catching any shrapnel.

>>511031066
>How to fight a drone:
>Get a long, lightweight pole that splits into 4 and put a net there. Add a tranparent swat shield at the bottom. Have a guy hold it and keep it pointedat the drone.
You could honestly get billions in funding for that idea. Join NATO already damn it

>>511026287 (OP)
Drones will evolve to have AI and can be swarmed at that point.

>>511031066
there's no effective counter to drones
main issue is that drones are mainly harassment weapon, striking when you least expect it. When you hear it coming usually it's already too late to react.

>>511026287 (OP)
Looks like a flying shoe

>>511031202
AI on drones will significantly bump up its price which will erase its main advantage

>>511030925
>Thats wild, I'm sure that similar percentages in Ukraine were killed by Russian drones

Don't think so, not because russian drones suck, but just because in other weapons russia has big advantage over ukraine and it has more ways to destroy the enemy

>>511031286
Developing AI is indeed expensive but uploading software isnt a cost issue not even for a swarm of drones. Not sure if the drone is safe from electronic warfare when its autonomous as it doesnt need radio communication at that point.

>>511031373

>>511031388
>Developing AI is indeed expensive but uploading software isnt a cost issue not even for a swarm of drones.
it's not only about software, if we're talking fully autonomous drones they need some serious computing power to process potential threats and targets on the battlefield which will require costly computing units and hefty batteries unless you want the drones to throw themselves at random burning tires.

>>511027511
shut up retard, shotguns are currently the best counter for soldiers, they even make shotguns marketed as such

>>511026287 (OP)
swarm drones using a.i programming, will be the next best thing on the battlefield. It doesnt always have to be about targeting soldiers, damaging infrastructure is also a priority in wars.

>>511031286
The AI visual recognition chips cost pennies now.
The rest can be done on dumb chips that also cost pennies.

>>511031854
>they make anti-drone ammo with special chambering so you have to buy their special shotgun too
lmao

>>511026287 (OP)
if they weren't incredibly useful they wouldn't be dominating multiple battlefields.
you can say whatever you want, but the results on the ground are all that matter and the results have everyone scrambling to get them and counter them.

>>511032200
are they good enough to tell real humans apart from dummies in like couple seconds?
because first countermeasure for AI drones will pop up will be sea of dummies

>>511032003
>swarm drones carrying payloads so small they can blow your ass off without killing you instantly
>damaging infrastructure
there are better ways to do that

>>511026287 (OP)
yeah drones are shit. so are firearms. stop people use them.

all matter is shells and bombs.

>>511032686
jewgle had commercially available TPU chips that could do that and more 5 years ago.
They were cheap as fuck even on launch.
Can't understand why more people didn't kick up a stink about it at the time.

>>511031373
What are the ratios so far?

>>511032338
lol

>>511028309
>there is also other stupid shit like the 2025 tank manual telling the soldier to wave his arms and shoot the main cannon at FPVs lmao
Between the hand signals thing and that example of "hovering" using an illustration of that Chinese spy balloon I have a sneaking suspicion that manual might not be entirely real.

>>511029021
>For one I didn't know it was gene convention violation for shottys
That's because shotguns aren't banned by the Geneva convention, that other anon is retarded.

>>511026287 (OP)
fpvs low cost and direct control all the way to impact from beyond visual range has made most conventional ground warfare obsolete.
coupled with unprecedented situational awarenes with overhead surveillance drone and given sufficient supply of fpvs no tank or infantry force can compete.
most of the disadvantages listed in op can be solved with $$ but that's not necessary right now in ukraine since quantity is more important.

>>511026287 (OP)
>>lower fire rate (a team can operate only a few drones at a time)
bro, the tech just keep improving, eventually a single soldier will be able to operate a swarm of drones by himself.

>>511027466
>shotguns are not allowed per Geneva convention
that's false tho

>>511035143
also, op is missing the part where operation picrel probably cost less than a single artillery piece, was controlled remotely to attack deep inside enemy lines, took out targets of significant value.
even before then we have seen quadcopters being launched from sea drones to reasonable effect.

>>511026287 (OP)
American tech is always 20 years ahead, kept under the wraps. The Chinese deploy autonomous swarms for their festivals and to show off LEDs in the sky. You think Americans don't have the ability to unleash death swarms? Think those drones will use the same specs as consumer grade drones? Why do you think they pushed 5G, Starlink, EV battery tech and 3D printing? Hahahahahahahaha get ready to live in City 17 behenchod

>>511032686
Thermal chips are cheap too. All you need to tell dummies and targets apart.
We're talking about 500 usd per re-usable drone including the 200-300usd munition

>>511026287 (OP)
>costlier than shells
Are you nuts? They cost half than a tenth of the price.

>>511026287 (OP)
They are Radio Controlled goycopters that are made to primarily feed the judeo-industrialist coonsoomer war economy in their fake wars, nothing more .
If drones were really any good:
1- They wouldn't be telling us about it
2- Kikes would be onto us with them right now !

>>511027466
>Muh conventioonz
People who invented these "war laws" don't follow them to begin with
In a war you don't obey your enemy's laws
Only a mad fool obeys his enemies
"War laws" are a cowardly empire's way of subduing their stupid and impressionable enemies.

>>511026287 (OP)
>(unless they are fyber optic, in which case on the other hand they can get tangled in objects even easier)

they dont if you look closely at your picrel, the fiber optic coil is at the drone... not where the operator is... so the drone is unwinding it and that means it can even fly into a house, fly to all the rooms and fly out and it will just continue flying because even if you tangle it in the house the coil is on the drone so it just keeps unwinding more fiber optic cable.......

thats how it works

>>511026287 (OP)
Ah ok, fight a land war without using them then if they are so terrible

>My bet is that some military at some point will bet too heavily on them while forgetting they can't quite do what shells, rockets, atgms and bullets do.
Now this is probably true.

>>511026287 (OP)
>If you look at their disadvantages compared to other weapon systems (rockets, shells, bullets, ATGMs etc), there's plenty of flaws to be found
You're failing to consider the disadvantages of the "other weapon systems", like their inherent inaccuracy OR extremely high cost. You can spam $800 drones and kill individual targets all day long, or you can fire a $100,000 Excalibur artillery shell and blow up one truck if it doesn't move between the time you fired and the time the shell hits, or you can spam an artillery barrage of $3000 shells and probably take out the truck along with most of the field it's in.

Guess which one of these is the most cost-effective? Plus, you can change your decision at the last instant if the truck you're headed for turns out to be full of schoolchildren instead of vatniggers.

>>511026384
fpbp
easier to pilot a fucking hand grenade than some shitty prepacked multi thousand dollar launcher + missile.

>>511026287 (OP)
the ability of free speech and internet is overhyped. It alllows retards like OP to shit out their retarded insights publicly.

I will say that drones aren't the ENTIRE story but it's delusional as fuck to claim they aren't a major part of the story for armies like Ukraine and Russia. both are extremely poor and do not have the same level of capability of the US, really no one does though.

>>511026287 (OP)
They cost 350-600$.
Can fly for 30-50km.
Guided.
You're completely retarded if you think that's... ah wait right, you're an Italian, everything checks out.

>>511026287 (OP)
>Their main advantages are
>Manoeuvrability
>Versatilty
>Psychological effect (mainly due to their novelty, like gas in ww1)

Their main advantages are precision and cost

>>511026287 (OP)
>lower fire rate
Mostly irrelevant if you hit, and it's not exactly lower than infantry ATGMs; they also only operate a few systems with maybe 1 rocket per minute.
>inferior speed
Compensated by being small. It's not like you'd see bullets if they flew more slowly, and if you did that wouldn't matter much either. Also there's things like radar that can track artillery shells and missiles better than drones.
>limited payload due to weight limitations
That's always the case. Bullets have a few grams of payload, and many huge missiles have only a comparatively tiny warhad, some less than 10% of its mass.
>have to be extra-aware of their surroundings
I havee never seen this become a reeal problem. Did some dronees crash iinto trees? Yes, but that was right next to the targeeet or bunker/house entrance, so the target still got damaged. That's simply the same as a "miss". You don't accidentally hit shit on the way to the target.
>can be intercepted
So? Against bullets there's armor (ineffective against drone shaped charges). Anything with an engine can be intercepted, baring some hypersonic weapons.
>limited range
Nothing stopping you from dropping small drones from a large one. They already do that. Put drones into cluster dispenser? Not hard, just gotta have people ready to control them (or AI).
>can be shot down more easily due to their lower speed
Quadcopters are very difficult to shoot down, and while something like a Shahed is easy to hit a few bullet holes won't necessarily stop it.
>susceptible to weather (heavy rain, wind, hail etc)
Is all aviation and many missiles. Even bullets are affected a little bit.
>can't use drones in a hurricane, GOTCHA
>Kamikaze ones are mono-use
Thee only reusable weapon is a knife.
>bomber ones highly imprecise
By what standards?

>>511026287 (OP)
russian drone producer, they now drop anti tank mines with them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmfNUM2CbbM

>>511026287 (OP)
>>511041142
Because hitting within 1-2m of the target, which they do consistently, is pretty damn accurate.
>still by far costlier than shells and ammo and rockets and RPGs
A quadcopter costs maybe $150 to produce. About the same as an RPG-7 grenade. Shahed is no more expensive than advanced artillery shells, and laser guides one cost more. Guided missiles or rockets are no cheaper either, but have a larger warhead.
>Their main advantages are
It's more about cost and precision. Versatility is the same as anything that flies. Never has been killing been more ecnomical. You can kiill one guy for like $500 each. That's about as economical as FMJ bullets (of which it takes hundreds to thousands on average to kill a soldier).

>>511026287 (OP)
cheaper and easier to make than a shell and also much more accurate. shells are a hit or miss, while unless you shoot down the drone before it gets to you its game over

>>511026287 (OP)
>Italian yapping about war tactics
>Haven't won a war in 75 years

I wonder why armies would be interested in a 500$ anti material device that can be driven precisely into vehicles weakpoints , have a high success rate and can be used from cover or safe distances without any real countermeasures to it. You are retarded if you thing even RPG's with PG-7VR are better than this.