5 ms·

Well, you can check in current Ukraine vs. Russia war how both sides lost soldiers for using mobile phones. People tend to forget they carry device that might h

by fx1994 3y ago

Well, you can check in current Ukraine vs. Russia war how both sides lost soldiers for using mobile phones. People tend to forget they carry device that might hurt them in the end.

hilbert42 3y ago
I'm surprised soldiers are actually allowed to carry mobiles whilst on active duty. It's a long time since I did any military stuff and it was before smartphones but I distinctly remember the incessant lectures about carrying unnecessary items that would identify one or one's mission. By those standards carrying a smartphone would definitely be outlawed and if caught one would be up on a charge. Edit: it seems to me that back then that had smartphones been around they'd have been classified as radio equipment and there were very strict rules and procedures about 'radio silence'.
- paganel 3y ago
  Wasn't ever part of any military but as far as I understand having something to kill time on while there's almost nothing happening for hours and days on end is one of the main uses of having mobile phones in the trench-lines of Southern Ukraine. Also, to almost always keep in touch with the loved ones from back front, I can imagine that that has to be good for morale when you don't know if you're going to be still standing the next day. And as far as front-line battles go, the amount of cheap drones being employed by both sides makes "identification by mobile-phone signal" pretty moot, if you're close to the front-line the other side knows exactly where you're located long before checking with your mobile-phone tower or whatever. I agree though, use of mobile phones is still a pretty good location giveaway when there's troop concentrations just at the back of the front, where it's more difficult to employ drones. Also, this is the first protracted war fought between near-peer adversaries since the advent of the "IT revolution" (or whatever we want to call the last 30 or so years), there's lots of things that militaries are now learning when it comes to adapting said IT/tech to the battle-fronts and to the soldiers themselves.
  - isilofi 3y ago
    Drones can spot camouflaged positions only from some closer distance, certainly less than 1000m. Mobile phone signals can be pinpointed from further away, 10km is easily possible, and the cellular network means that you have a network of antennas in a tighter grid than that. And beyond switching off your phone, there is no camouflaging cell phone signals. So even if you then employ the drones e.g. to aim and correct the artillery (300m precision from cellphone tower cross location isn't precise enough), cell phones will quickly tell you where to start looking with your drones.
    - paganel 3y ago
      > Drones can spot camouflaged positions only from some closer distance, certainly less than 1000m. You should check some of the war videos from Ukraine, there's lots and lots of drones up in the sky, it's the classic "quantity that has a quality of its own". Some events/attacks/actions get filmed with 3 or more drones, I remember several such events where there were three different POVs coming from those drones. I'm tempted to say that camouflage has lost most of its value on a battlefield like that of Southern Ukraine. Even though that would probably be wrong, seeing individual soldiers chased by artillery (mortars, mostly) under heavy foliage, while those soldiers are still wearing adequate camouflage, makes me have second thoughts about the relevance of said camouflage. More generally, I've yet to see a serious discussion coming from the tech circles about how cheap drones have transformed warfare. Eric Schmidt had tried something like that earlier this year in a Foreign Affairs piece [1], but unfortunately the article wasn't that smart, too many platitudes. In his defence, he was writing at the start of the year, for example this "prediction" of his: > Marines in urban warfare, for example, could be accompanied by microdrones that serve as their eyes and ears. has already been implemented by both sides (UA and RU) during this past summer (replace "urban" with the fields around Rabotyne or Bakhmut). [1] https://archive.is/lSnm5 https://archive.is/lSnm5
      - isilofi 3y ago
        Those videos are only published in cases where there is something interesting and propaganda-wise useful to show. Mostly a success of the publishing party. What you do not see are the hours and hours of flying along tree lines hoping to spot something. For every soldier you see being chased by a drone, you don't see the dozens overlooked by that same drone. Camouflage is never panacea, but useful camouflage exists, even today. I've (almost) stepped on comrades in an exercise that were hidden well enough to not see them from 3m in broad daylight. But for things to work that well, you need to know what makes humans detect their prey. Movement is a dead giveaway, so as soon as you are running you are toast anyways, and only sheer luck might save you. Form and contour is another problem, something human-shaped and green will stand out, even among other green things. See something rectangular in the forest? Bomb it, rectangular trees are rare. Texture is another giveaway, things looking smooth, regular or out-of-place compared to nearby textures. That's why your camouflaged tank will look like a bush or pile of leaves when properly camouflaged. All this means that of course you have to go beyond camouflage paint and camouflage clothes. Both are a start, and will help to a point, as a base layer, and for great viewing distances. But even before drones, proper camouflage also involves covering yourself and objects in leaves, branches, nets, parking below trees, etc. Another interesting point about Ukraine war videos: What you also usually do not see are videos of camouflage being broken by thermal imaging. Both sides have thermal equipment, but I guess are reluctant to point their enemy at how much or how little of it they have, and how vulnerable or not vulnerable the others' camouflage techniques are to it. Also, smaller drones have a limited reach. To get at the juicy targets (logistics, headquarters) way in the back, you need more expensive and rare long-range drones. So I guess the drone density will sharply drop off beyond the first lines of trenches.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by fx1994 3y ago

Well, you can check in current Ukraine vs. Russia war how both sides lost soldiers for using mobile phones. People tend to forget they carry device that might hurt them in the end.

hilbert42 3y ago

I'm surprised soldiers are actually allowed to carry mobiles whilst on active duty. It's a long time since I did any military stuff and it was before smartphones but I distinctly remember the incessant lectures about carrying unnecessary items that would identify one or one's mission. By those standards carrying a smartphone would definitely be outlawed and if caught one would be up on a charge. Edit: it seems to me that back then that had smartphones been around they'd have been classified as radio equipment and there were very strict rules and procedures about 'radio silence'.

paganel 3y ago
Wasn't ever part of any military but as far as I understand having something to kill time on while there's almost nothing happening for hours and days on end is one of the main uses of having mobile phones in the trench-lines of Southern Ukraine. Also, to almost always keep in touch with the loved ones from back front, I can imagine that that has to be good for morale when you don't know if you're going to be still standing the next day. And as far as front-line battles go, the amount of cheap drones being employed by both sides makes "identification by mobile-phone signal" pretty moot, if you're close to the front-line the other side knows exactly where you're located long before checking with your mobile-phone tower or whatever. I agree though, use of mobile phones is still a pretty good location giveaway when there's troop concentrations just at the back of the front, where it's more difficult to employ drones. Also, this is the first protracted war fought between near-peer adversaries since the advent of the "IT revolution" (or whatever we want to call the last 30 or so years), there's lots of things that militaries are now learning when it comes to adapting said IT/tech to the battle-fronts and to the soldiers themselves.
- isilofi 3y ago
  Drones can spot camouflaged positions only from some closer distance, certainly less than 1000m. Mobile phone signals can be pinpointed from further away, 10km is easily possible, and the cellular network means that you have a network of antennas in a tighter grid than that. And beyond switching off your phone, there is no camouflaging cell phone signals. So even if you then employ the drones e.g. to aim and correct the artillery (300m precision from cellphone tower cross location isn't precise enough), cell phones will quickly tell you where to start looking with your drones.
  - paganel 3y ago
    > Drones can spot camouflaged positions only from some closer distance, certainly less than 1000m. You should check some of the war videos from Ukraine, there's lots and lots of drones up in the sky, it's the classic "quantity that has a quality of its own". Some events/attacks/actions get filmed with 3 or more drones, I remember several such events where there were three different POVs coming from those drones. I'm tempted to say that camouflage has lost most of its value on a battlefield like that of Southern Ukraine. Even though that would probably be wrong, seeing individual soldiers chased by artillery (mortars, mostly) under heavy foliage, while those soldiers are still wearing adequate camouflage, makes me have second thoughts about the relevance of said camouflage. More generally, I've yet to see a serious discussion coming from the tech circles about how cheap drones have transformed warfare. Eric Schmidt had tried something like that earlier this year in a Foreign Affairs piece [1], but unfortunately the article wasn't that smart, too many platitudes. In his defence, he was writing at the start of the year, for example this "prediction" of his: > Marines in urban warfare, for example, could be accompanied by microdrones that serve as their eyes and ears. has already been implemented by both sides (UA and RU) during this past summer (replace "urban" with the fields around Rabotyne or Bakhmut). [1] https://archive.is/lSnm5 https://archive.is/lSnm5
    - isilofi 3y ago
      Those videos are only published in cases where there is something interesting and propaganda-wise useful to show. Mostly a success of the publishing party. What you do not see are the hours and hours of flying along tree lines hoping to spot something. For every soldier you see being chased by a drone, you don't see the dozens overlooked by that same drone. Camouflage is never panacea, but useful camouflage exists, even today. I've (almost) stepped on comrades in an exercise that were hidden well enough to not see them from 3m in broad daylight. But for things to work that well, you need to know what makes humans detect their prey. Movement is a dead giveaway, so as soon as you are running you are toast anyways, and only sheer luck might save you. Form and contour is another problem, something human-shaped and green will stand out, even among other green things. See something rectangular in the forest? Bomb it, rectangular trees are rare. Texture is another giveaway, things looking smooth, regular or out-of-place compared to nearby textures. That's why your camouflaged tank will look like a bush or pile of leaves when properly camouflaged. All this means that of course you have to go beyond camouflage paint and camouflage clothes. Both are a start, and will help to a point, as a base layer, and for great viewing distances. But even before drones, proper camouflage also involves covering yourself and objects in leaves, branches, nets, parking below trees, etc. Another interesting point about Ukraine war videos: What you also usually do not see are videos of camouflage being broken by thermal imaging. Both sides have thermal equipment, but I guess are reluctant to point their enemy at how much or how little of it they have, and how vulnerable or not vulnerable the others' camouflage techniques are to it. Also, smaller drones have a limited reach. To get at the juicy targets (logistics, headquarters) way in the back, you need more expensive and rare long-range drones. So I guess the drone density will sharply drop off beyond the first lines of trenches.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]