3 ms·

I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion from Ukraine. What Ukraine has shown is that war is mostly unchanged, you're still mostly just digging trenches

I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion from Ukraine. What Ukraine has shown is that war is mostly unchanged, you're still mostly just digging trenches and firing artillery at each other. Sure there are lots of drones, but that's mainly to make up for both side's lack of guided weapons and sufficient air power to establish air supremacy. Neither of which is an issue for NATO. The situation in Ukraine has only been validating western military planning by showing that precision strike capability and air power are key.

linuxftw 3y ago
The Russians aren't risking their planes. They use cruise missiles and drones for behind the lines targets. I don't think the Russians lack guided weapons, they are launching dozens of cruise missiles each week. I think it's quite likely they're rationing their sophisticated weapons in case the conflict escalates. From what I've seen, the drones have been very effective. A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank seems like a good trade, even if it takes 10 drones to do it. It's fascinating to me to see how effective artillery is, you're right about that part. The territorial war is mostly about artillery, but the drones are a force multiplier there, assisting in removing enemy artillery as well as targeting.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank seems like a good trade, even if it takes 10 drones to do it. I certainly agree with that, but I'd like to caution you that sticker-price comparison is very limited, it papers over a ton of very important details and can lead you completely astray. For instance, suppose you use $10k of ammunition to shoot down a $100 mortar shell; the sticker-price analysis says that's a bad trade, but what about the context? What if the mortar shell would have otherwise landed on equipment or personnel valued in millions of dollars? With that context, it's clear that it was actually a very good trade. That's just scratching the surface though, what if one side has is backed by strong economies and can afford $10k more than the other side can afford $100? What if one side has huge stockpiles and the other doesn't? What if the war is going to be over in hours and so attrition warfare simply isn't relevant? The whole context of the exchange must be considered.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  The Russians aren't risking their planes because they have very few pilots, who are under trained and their planes are very vulnerable to air defense without having as good of an ability to counter air defense radars. Their guided weapons have also been shown to not be as accurate as expected, considering that despite all those cruise missiles, drone and satellite surveillance, they haven't really hit many critical targets, instead mostly just terrorizing civilians. For example, a year into the war, Russia had never hit the trains carrying weapons deliveries in from Poland despite them being a pretty obvious target for a guided missile. A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank is a good trade, but that is also within the price range of JDAMs, which bolsters my point that this conflict has mostly proven western planning on what kinds of tech they need to conduct a modern war to be right.
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    I think all countries have few pilots. Russia is the #2 Airforce in the world, behind the US. If you compare them to the US, sure, they look under prepared. Against literally any other individual country, they look fairly competent. I don't think any conflict will feature overwhelming air superiority between two comparable powers. As far as accuracy, it's tough to really say. The Russians have claimed to have hit all sorts of things, including a Patriot complex. Of course, the Ukrainians deny that. As far as drones vs similar costing items, there's a different tool for a different job. I think the drones have proven quite efficient.
mcpackieh 3y ago
> What Ukraine has shown is that war is mostly unchanged, you're still mostly just digging trenches and firing artillery at each other. This is what wars turn into when both sides are roughly matched on the battlefield, and/or aren't particularly good at war (lacking the competency or equipment for maneuver warfare.) The Iran-Iraq War turned into this same sort of trench warfare during the 80s, but when America went to war against Iraq in the 91 they bulldozed Iraq's trenches and buried thousands of Iraqi soldiers, breaking through or bypassing the Iraqi fortifications in mere hours. I hope we don't get to find out, but I think a war between NATO and Russia would go a lot differently than the war between NATO-backed Ukraine and Russia.

linuxftw 3y ago

The Russians aren't risking their planes. They use cruise missiles and drones for behind the lines targets. I don't think the Russians lack guided weapons, they are launching dozens of cruise missiles each week. I think it's quite likely they're rationing their sophisticated weapons in case the conflict escalates. From what I've seen, the drones have been very effective. A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank seems like a good trade, even if it takes 10 drones to do it. It's fascinating to me to see how effective artillery is, you're right about that part. The territorial war is mostly about artillery, but the drones are a force multiplier there, assisting in removing enemy artillery as well as targeting.

mcpackieh 3y ago
> A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank seems like a good trade, even if it takes 10 drones to do it. I certainly agree with that, but I'd like to caution you that sticker-price comparison is very limited, it papers over a ton of very important details and can lead you completely astray. For instance, suppose you use $10k of ammunition to shoot down a $100 mortar shell; the sticker-price analysis says that's a bad trade, but what about the context? What if the mortar shell would have otherwise landed on equipment or personnel valued in millions of dollars? With that context, it's clear that it was actually a very good trade. That's just scratching the surface though, what if one side has is backed by strong economies and can afford $10k more than the other side can afford $100? What if one side has huge stockpiles and the other doesn't? What if the war is going to be over in hours and so attrition warfare simply isn't relevant? The whole context of the exchange must be considered.
dotnet00 3y ago
The Russians aren't risking their planes because they have very few pilots, who are under trained and their planes are very vulnerable to air defense without having as good of an ability to counter air defense radars. Their guided weapons have also been shown to not be as accurate as expected, considering that despite all those cruise missiles, drone and satellite surveillance, they haven't really hit many critical targets, instead mostly just terrorizing civilians. For example, a year into the war, Russia had never hit the trains carrying weapons deliveries in from Poland despite them being a pretty obvious target for a guided missile. A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank is a good trade, but that is also within the price range of JDAMs, which bolsters my point that this conflict has mostly proven western planning on what kinds of tech they need to conduct a modern war to be right.
- linuxftw 3y ago
  I think all countries have few pilots. Russia is the #2 Airforce in the world, behind the US. If you compare them to the US, sure, they look under prepared. Against literally any other individual country, they look fairly competent. I don't think any conflict will feature overwhelming air superiority between two comparable powers. As far as accuracy, it's tough to really say. The Russians have claimed to have hit all sorts of things, including a Patriot complex. Of course, the Ukrainians deny that. As far as drones vs similar costing items, there's a different tool for a different job. I think the drones have proven quite efficient.

mcpackieh 3y ago

> What Ukraine has shown is that war is mostly unchanged, you're still mostly just digging trenches and firing artillery at each other. This is what wars turn into when both sides are roughly matched on the battlefield, and/or aren't particularly good at war (lacking the competency or equipment for maneuver warfare.) The Iran-Iraq War turned into this same sort of trench warfare during the 80s, but when America went to war against Iraq in the 91 they bulldozed Iraq's trenches and buried thousands of Iraqi soldiers, breaking through or bypassing the Iraqi fortifications in mere hours. I hope we don't get to find out, but I think a war between NATO and Russia would go a lot differently than the war between NATO-backed Ukraine and Russia.