>>513001390
>but that doesn't tell me why you think the kill ratio is 1:1

Probably not 1:1 exactly, but it's a good ballpark to start from.

Historical artillery-attrition wars tend to have casualty ratios that track fairly close to artillery advantage, so if we track drones as ultra-precise artillery the ratios should be expected to stack up similarly.

>>512288523
>You are using a tactical planning slide from 2023 to argue against the President's Daily Brief from last week.

The daily briefing is not the source of the information but an outlet.
I'm genuinely interested in where the figure originated, whether it originated from US intel or UAF figures.

Such figures are so exceedingly rare in historical combat that they beg credulity. Incredible claims demand incredible evidence.


>(picrel GPT but any war historian will tell you the same)