5 ms·

> Once you've knocked out all the enemy drones, they'll surrender because humans can't fight drones. Or will lead to blending in with civilians, more advanced

> Once you've knocked out all the enemy drones, they'll surrender because humans can't fight drones. Or will lead to blending in with civilians, more advanced camouflage, or “hugging the enemy” tactics (staying close enough that they risk harming their own people). Or more terrorism rather than open warfare. It might be that with these killer drones, we will look back on WW2 style armies in the field as equivalent to 18th century musketeers lining up and firing volleys at each other in bright colored shirts.

dragontamer 5y ago
> It might be that with these killer drones, we will look back on WW2 style armies in the field as equivalent to 18th century musketeers lining up and firing volleys at each other in bright colored shirts. When the guns were so inaccurate that getting more shots was more important than actually aiming, that's the natural tactic to employ. Lining up was hugely important for other members of the army to know what you're doing. If you're 1st in line, you shoot. Back of the line you're loading gunpowder (with everyone else). Middle of the line, you're dropping the bullet into the musket. Etc. etc. Like a choir performance: its more about having tons of other people doing the same thing you're supposed to be doing. So no one in the army ever "misses" a step in the ~1-minute reload process. Even if you're not that good at singing, you get "better" in a choir because you just follow the crowd. Similarly, even if you've forgotten a few steps in the long reload process, you just mimic the actions of your neighbors. ----------- Note that the Redcoat beat the US rifles at pretty much every engagement. It was guerilla warfare that allowed George Washington to survive and last through the war. Rifles took longer to load. Without precision machining, the bullets needed to be wadded up with paper to stick with the rifling, adding a laborious step in the shooting process. Muskets could fire more shots per minute due to the smooth (though inaccurate) barrels. In army vs army battles, aim doesn't matter, your bullet will hit somebody over there, so there's no advantage to the superior aim that rifles have. You've added 20-seconds to your reload process for almost no tactical advantage at all. USA experimented with rifles / guerilla warfare, but it really wasn't that successful in the 1700s. (It got the job done but... George Washington lost far more battles than he won). Even in the mid 1800s, the British Square formations were doing decently.
- cercatrova 5y ago
  I don't think the parent was saying that firing lines were ineffective - indeed, like you say, if they were actually ineffective, people back then would've stopped using them. Rather, the parent was comparing the changing nature of warfare, such that we see field armies today as being eternal in warfare, but just like firing lines, they too will be replaced by new tactics. It doesn't mean that field armies don't work currently, just that they won't work in the future.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    I guess my overall point is that the specific, nitty-gritty reasons militaries do one thing over the other is more interesting and enlightening when put into context. If drones are the weapon of the future, then they will have some kind of advantage over their predecessor. A lot of people in this page are talking as if drones will replace fighters (lol no), cruise missiles (lol no), and other weaponry. Lets really think about things: What does a Predator Drone really do? How is the military using drones TODAY, and how does that change in the future? We can see that the #1 advantage of a drone is its __loitering__ capabilities. Missiles can't loiter, and sending a pilot in there to loiter is higher-risk than sending in a drone. Can __loitering__ help in a fight vs a tank? Yes: if the loitering drone is faster than air support (which it will be, because its at the time/place to support the infantry), then it is reasonable to expect infantry to use a drone rather than call on air-support. -------------- This is how combat changes. One step at a time, as people incrementally think about the distinct advantages a weapon has over its predecessor. Musket-warfare was such because shooting a bullet-per-minute was better than shooting a bullet-per-1.5 minutes. Rifle warfare (thanks to the Minié ball) allowed accurate rifles to shoot faster than once-per-minute AND do so accurately. And as such, tactics changed. It was no longer a question of "bullet throughput vs bullet accuracy", an invention happened that allowed both simultaneously. --------- What advantages do drones have in combat? That's really the big question that needs to be discussed. Today's modern theory of combat is "Combined Arms". We want to invent devices where "Device X" requires special weaponry, while "Device Y" requires OPPOSITE weaponry. RPGs kill tanks, but are terrible vs infantry. Machine guns kill infantry, but are terrible vs tanks. SAM kill airplanes, but are terrible vs tanks and infantry. Each "leg" of your combined arms forces the opponent to make a difficult choice. What gun do I pack in my bags today? Where do drones fit in this puzzle? As far as I'm concerned, drones are looking increasingly like "infantry replacement", more than anything. Their ability to "loiter" in an area, and probably have specialized weaponry (through with a small payload) means you can carry a wide variety of weapons on a wide variety of different drones, in support of a greater overall mission. At least, if future drones are as cheap as everyone seems to be making them sound...
sangnoir 5y ago
> Or more terrorism rather than open warfare. Some autonomous weapons blur the line, like the 'sniperbot' recently used to kill an Iranian nuclear scientist as he drove by. The weapon itself was mounted to the back of a truck, and could have lay waiting for days/weeks/months. There is no need for the fighters to blend in, when the weapons can - I imagine in the future where some high ranking military or political figure is sniped by a traffic light (by way of facial recognition or a humble license plate reader)
koheripbal 5y ago
Given the highly accurate nature of drone fire seen in the Armenian-Azeri war recently, I do not think "hugging the enemy" works any longer.

dragontamer 5y ago

> It might be that with these killer drones, we will look back on WW2 style armies in the field as equivalent to 18th century musketeers lining up and firing volleys at each other in bright colored shirts. When the guns were so inaccurate that getting more shots was more important than actually aiming, that's the natural tactic to employ. Lining up was hugely important for other members of the army to know what you're doing. If you're 1st in line, you shoot. Back of the line you're loading gunpowder (with everyone else). Middle of the line, you're dropping the bullet into the musket. Etc. etc. Like a choir performance: its more about having tons of other people doing the same thing you're supposed to be doing. So no one in the army ever "misses" a step in the ~1-minute reload process. Even if you're not that good at singing, you get "better" in a choir because you just follow the crowd. Similarly, even if you've forgotten a few steps in the long reload process, you just mimic the actions of your neighbors. ----------- Note that the Redcoat beat the US rifles at pretty much every engagement. It was guerilla warfare that allowed George Washington to survive and last through the war. Rifles took longer to load. Without precision machining, the bullets needed to be wadded up with paper to stick with the rifling, adding a laborious step in the shooting process. Muskets could fire more shots per minute due to the smooth (though inaccurate) barrels. In army vs army battles, aim doesn't matter, your bullet will hit somebody over there, so there's no advantage to the superior aim that rifles have. You've added 20-seconds to your reload process for almost no tactical advantage at all. USA experimented with rifles / guerilla warfare, but it really wasn't that successful in the 1700s. (It got the job done but... George Washington lost far more battles than he won). Even in the mid 1800s, the British Square formations were doing decently.

cercatrova 5y ago
I don't think the parent was saying that firing lines were ineffective - indeed, like you say, if they were actually ineffective, people back then would've stopped using them. Rather, the parent was comparing the changing nature of warfare, such that we see field armies today as being eternal in warfare, but just like firing lines, they too will be replaced by new tactics. It doesn't mean that field armies don't work currently, just that they won't work in the future.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  I guess my overall point is that the specific, nitty-gritty reasons militaries do one thing over the other is more interesting and enlightening when put into context. If drones are the weapon of the future, then they will have some kind of advantage over their predecessor. A lot of people in this page are talking as if drones will replace fighters (lol no), cruise missiles (lol no), and other weaponry. Lets really think about things: What does a Predator Drone really do? How is the military using drones TODAY, and how does that change in the future? We can see that the #1 advantage of a drone is its __loitering__ capabilities. Missiles can't loiter, and sending a pilot in there to loiter is higher-risk than sending in a drone. Can __loitering__ help in a fight vs a tank? Yes: if the loitering drone is faster than air support (which it will be, because its at the time/place to support the infantry), then it is reasonable to expect infantry to use a drone rather than call on air-support. -------------- This is how combat changes. One step at a time, as people incrementally think about the distinct advantages a weapon has over its predecessor. Musket-warfare was such because shooting a bullet-per-minute was better than shooting a bullet-per-1.5 minutes. Rifle warfare (thanks to the Minié ball) allowed accurate rifles to shoot faster than once-per-minute AND do so accurately. And as such, tactics changed. It was no longer a question of "bullet throughput vs bullet accuracy", an invention happened that allowed both simultaneously. --------- What advantages do drones have in combat? That's really the big question that needs to be discussed. Today's modern theory of combat is "Combined Arms". We want to invent devices where "Device X" requires special weaponry, while "Device Y" requires OPPOSITE weaponry. RPGs kill tanks, but are terrible vs infantry. Machine guns kill infantry, but are terrible vs tanks. SAM kill airplanes, but are terrible vs tanks and infantry. Each "leg" of your combined arms forces the opponent to make a difficult choice. What gun do I pack in my bags today? Where do drones fit in this puzzle? As far as I'm concerned, drones are looking increasingly like "infantry replacement", more than anything. Their ability to "loiter" in an area, and probably have specialized weaponry (through with a small payload) means you can carry a wide variety of weapons on a wide variety of different drones, in support of a greater overall mission. At least, if future drones are as cheap as everyone seems to be making them sound...

sangnoir 5y ago

> Or more terrorism rather than open warfare. Some autonomous weapons blur the line, like the 'sniperbot' recently used to kill an Iranian nuclear scientist as he drove by. The weapon itself was mounted to the back of a truck, and could have lay waiting for days/weeks/months. There is no need for the fighters to blend in, when the weapons can - I imagine in the future where some high ranking military or political figure is sniped by a traffic light (by way of facial recognition or a humble license plate reader)

koheripbal 5y ago

Given the highly accurate nature of drone fire seen in the Armenian-Azeri war recently, I do not think "hugging the enemy" works any longer.