5 ms·

Don't worry about this, it is even worse. 75% of all casualties Russian military doctors see stem from drones. (In major wars before it was artillery leading th

Don't worry about this, it is even worse. 75% of all casualties Russian military doctors see stem from drones. (In major wars before it was artillery leading this list.) So investing into artillery shells is a bit like investing in cavalry 120 years ago..

roenxi 1y ago
That argument does not hold. See the famous plane diagram - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald - you're talking about a highly biased sample, it isn't safe to draw that sort of conclusion. And that is even before the observation that killing people isn't necessarily (or even usually) the goal of war.
- looofooo0 1y ago
  You mean people who make it back to doctors is biased? Maybe against guns or mortars, but not so much against artillery. But this bias is also a secondary effect stemming from drones, as it increases time to evacuate or denies it totally. Which means that guns and mortars became more deadly because of drones. You can also look at the statistics of number of bullets to kill someone in major wars. Which is shockingly high. So with single digit hit percentage of drones and the numbers of drones deployed...
ohgr 1y ago
These artillery shells are mostly for destroying equipment and structures not people.
- looofooo0 1y ago
  No, if you look at statistics like ww2, most harm to soldiers was inflicted by artillery.
  - benterix 1y ago
    >> These artillery shells are mostly for destroying equipment and structures not people. > No, if you look at statistics like ww2, most harm to soldiers was inflicted by artillery. These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
    - looofooo0 1y ago
      Maybe, but the existing of air burst artillery and cluster munition is not supporting this claim. Also, the digging of foxholes is done also partially to greatly decrease effectiveness of artillery fire.
zabzonk 1y ago
> 75% of all casualties Russian military doctors see stem from drones How can the doctors tell? And a drone does not carry much AP armament. But one smacking into a Ukrainian residential block...
- looofooo0 1y ago
  Probably artillery fragments cause other wounds then drones.
benterix 1y ago
Supposing this is true (hard to believe anything Russian sources say), this would make sense as Ukrainians had much less 155 munitions than Russia and the Allies had a hard time helping them as everybody thought wars in Europe are a thing of the past. So this particular ratio may change in a year or two.
piva00 1y ago
Cavalry was replaced by mechanised cavalry, the concept still exists with better equipment. Drones don't replace artillery, they are a new weapon, just like air dropped bombs didn't completely replace artillery. An army with drones and artillery is more capable than an army with only drones. The main difference is that armies learnt how to counter artillery: keep squads separated enough, assault units more dispersed, dig more foxholes, etc. They haven't learnt how to counter drones yet, the arms race for that is raging on Ukraine.
mrguyorama 1y ago
Ukraine uses drones primarily because they cannot produce artillery shells and the countries supplying artillery shells all planned on not needing artillery because a B52 does the whole "remove this grid square" job quite well. But then Trump, so.... Russia has been using plenty of artillery, like, entirely too much shitty artillery in fact. It's just as effective as it used to be. Drones meanwhile are only effective right now because they haven't experienced a full cycle of arms race yet. Nobody has found the right "defense" for it. Automated cannons will likely nerf drone's effectiveness in a superpower conflict, and any attempt to harden a cheap drone to survive combat just drives it closer and closer in functionality and cost to an actual missile. Basically this is like saying a navy is no longer a useful resource because of a war taking place on dry land.

roenxi 1y ago

That argument does not hold. See the famous plane diagram - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald - you're talking about a highly biased sample, it isn't safe to draw that sort of conclusion. And that is even before the observation that killing people isn't necessarily (or even usually) the goal of war.

looofooo0 1y ago
You mean people who make it back to doctors is biased? Maybe against guns or mortars, but not so much against artillery. But this bias is also a secondary effect stemming from drones, as it increases time to evacuate or denies it totally. Which means that guns and mortars became more deadly because of drones. You can also look at the statistics of number of bullets to kill someone in major wars. Which is shockingly high. So with single digit hit percentage of drones and the numbers of drones deployed...

ohgr 1y ago

These artillery shells are mostly for destroying equipment and structures not people.

looofooo0 1y ago
No, if you look at statistics like ww2, most harm to soldiers was inflicted by artillery.
- benterix 1y ago
  >> These artillery shells are mostly for destroying equipment and structures not people. > No, if you look at statistics like ww2, most harm to soldiers was inflicted by artillery. These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
  - looofooo0 1y ago
    Maybe, but the existing of air burst artillery and cluster munition is not supporting this claim. Also, the digging of foxholes is done also partially to greatly decrease effectiveness of artillery fire.

zabzonk 1y ago

> 75% of all casualties Russian military doctors see stem from drones How can the doctors tell? And a drone does not carry much AP armament. But one smacking into a Ukrainian residential block...

looofooo0 1y ago
Probably artillery fragments cause other wounds then drones.

benterix 1y ago

Supposing this is true (hard to believe anything Russian sources say), this would make sense as Ukrainians had much less 155 munitions than Russia and the Allies had a hard time helping them as everybody thought wars in Europe are a thing of the past. So this particular ratio may change in a year or two.

piva00 1y ago

Cavalry was replaced by mechanised cavalry, the concept still exists with better equipment. Drones don't replace artillery, they are a new weapon, just like air dropped bombs didn't completely replace artillery. An army with drones and artillery is more capable than an army with only drones. The main difference is that armies learnt how to counter artillery: keep squads separated enough, assault units more dispersed, dig more foxholes, etc. They haven't learnt how to counter drones yet, the arms race for that is raging on Ukraine.

mrguyorama 1y ago

Ukraine uses drones primarily because they cannot produce artillery shells and the countries supplying artillery shells all planned on not needing artillery because a B52 does the whole "remove this grid square" job quite well. But then Trump, so.... Russia has been using plenty of artillery, like, entirely too much shitty artillery in fact. It's just as effective as it used to be. Drones meanwhile are only effective right now because they haven't experienced a full cycle of arms race yet. Nobody has found the right "defense" for it. Automated cannons will likely nerf drone's effectiveness in a superpower conflict, and any attempt to harden a cheap drone to survive combat just drives it closer and closer in functionality and cost to an actual missile. Basically this is like saying a navy is no longer a useful resource because of a war taking place on dry land.