Posted on 07/22/2025 12:45:58 PM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
On May 23rd, The Times published an extraordinarily candid probe into how militarised drones have irrevocably revolutionised warfare in the 21st century, with Russia far at the forefront of this radical shakeup of how conflicts are waged. Meanwhile, there is little indication NATO members even vaguely comprehend this battlefield reality, let alone a single one of them is undertaking any serious measures whatsoever to prepare for conflict such as that currently unfolding and evolving daily throughout Ukraine’s eastern steppe.
The Times piece is a first-person report of a visit to the assorted headquarters of Kiev’s 93rd Mechanised Brigade, in basements of abandoned buildings and homes throughout the Donetsk city of Kostiantynivka. It’s a disquieting account of the realities of war in the era of drones, which has “[altered] the physical make-up of the front line, the tactics of the war and the psychology of the soldiers fighting it,” while “having a devastating impact on Ukraine’s logistical ability.”
At one stage, The Times reporter was warned they were standing nine kilometres - 5.5 miles - from the nearest Russian position, and thus “well inside the kill range.” A Ukrainian soldier told them with a shrug, this was “now an easy range in which to die”:
“No other weapon type has changed the face of the war here so much or so fast as the FPV drone. Almost any vehicle within five kilometres of the front is as good as finished. Anything moving out to ten kilometres is in danger. Drone strikes at 15 or 20 km are not that unusual...”
(Excerpt) Read more at kitklarenberg.com ...
“paragraph after paragraph of repeating the headline question in various ways with the answer buried way down the page.”
If you haven’t seen that, then you need to read more articles, call it the teaser if you like, the teaser is mentioned over and over in various ways but the answer is well down the article.
Geese have been staying out of range for too long now. That special drone bullet sounds like what I need.
“”””The present day MBT has been dead for a long time.””””
That isn’t the lesson the Russians and North Korea have taken from their war.
“Returning Tank Production to Soviet Era Levels: Russia Will Soon Be Building Over 3000 T-80s and T-90s Per Year”
Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff
July-2nd-2025
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/returning-tank-production-soviet-era-levels-russia-over-3000
“Kim Jong Un calls for mass-producing newest tanks in visit to upgraded factory”
https://www.nknews.org/2025/05/kim-jong-un-calls-for-mass-producing-newest-tanks-in-visit-to-upgraded-factory/
A very good analysis.
Just because we spent a lot of money on something, and that something worked very well in its day, does not mean it is state of the art, or even useful, now.
I think it is more Ukraine than Russia that is causing the revolution in warfare.
At first during the second invasion of Ukraine by Russia when Russian troops tried to push to Kiev we saw how man pads destroyed tanks and convoys of vehicles. The Javelin, Karl Gustav and other hand held weapons proved Tanks were no longer invincible. The US Marine Corps recently abandoned its tanks.
Later in the war first Ukraine, then later Russia with more sophisticated (and foreign designed) drones started to use them as troop hunter/killer drones.
Then Ukraine has developed maritime drones to go after ships and bridges. This is not a Russian thing.
Russia has been working on long distance glide bombs that are changing air defense requirements.
The biggest change seems to be in the need for hunter killer drones that can bomb/mortar/grenade enemy troops and air defense weapons that can target and destroy such drones.
bttt
Battleships have been obsolete for 80 years.
Can’t hold land with drones. Ultimately you have to move troops, and some sort of armored vehicle is useful to do it.
“with Russia far at the forefront of this radical shakeup of how conflicts are waged. Meanwhile, there is little indication NATO members even vaguely comprehend this battlefield reality”
Oh, they will, if the Zeepers and Neocons get their way and get NATO into DIRECT COMBAT against Russia. Hell, Germany and UK have all but declared war on Russia and will be the first to learn the new reality, the HARD WAY.
In other words, the weight, cost, complexity of employing it, technological difficulty in developing it are low, while trying to counter it poses a far greater challenge.
I think, in this case, the drone has the advantage.
That is with a country that has R&D and an industrial base (why that matters and I brought this up already when this all started), i.e. the capability to develop and mass produce these things.
Realize, most the retards we have been dealing with in the last 34 years rely on others to develop and build what they use. Much of what they use is antiquated junk. They don't have doctrine per say, they use a hodgepodge of equipment that doesn't jive, nor do they have formal training centers etc. They're just a group of idiots that repeat “Allah Akbar” 10 times when they shoot a 1980s era RPG-7 at our tank.
Not sure what you were trying to say there, not even in regard to the North Korean and Russian push for tanks coming out of their Drone experience in Europe.
Sure,
Do you want to lose 1,000+ tanks?
The Russians are willing to suck up 390,000+ casualties as of 2 months ago, how do you think we would react to that?
—
This is my idea of warfare: we decimate the enemy, crush them, and walk away with 1,145 casualties (all causes, WIA and KIA): 1991 Desert Storm (total dominance over the enemy)
I’m not impressed by trying to outdo the enemy in how many folks we can lose. Not a race I want to win.
I’m not aware of any country that is ending it’s demand for tanks.
Rumsfeld, once said something very profound (he actually said a lot of smart things):
https://minimalistquotes.com/donald-rumsfeld-quote-84205/
We all find ourselves in such a situation.
We did also when the insurgency started and we were not trained, equipped nor structured for such a conflict starting end of 2003 (by Nov it was undeniable).
The Russians are making due with what they have. That is not what is ideal / possible.
They are not going to retool and mass produce some new tank over night. They are stuck with what they have for the foreseeable future and it does OK, if they play it smart. But a T72 (The T90 is a 72 on steroids) is not a great tank.
I do not understand your posts or what you are talking about.
I’m not aware of any nation that is abandoning tanks, none, and Russia and North Korea are increasing production.
“Returning Tank Production to Soviet Era Levels: Russia Will Soon Be Building Over 3000 T-80s and T-90s Per Year”
Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff
July-2nd-2025
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/returning-tank-production-soviet-era-levels-russia-over-3000
“Kim Jong Un calls for mass-producing newest tanks in visit to upgraded factory”
https://www.nknews.org/2025/05/kim-jong-un-calls-for-mass-producing-newest-tanks-in-visit-to-upgraded-factory/
There are no battleships in any Navy.
The opening scenes of "Angel Has Fallen" include a drone strike on the US President while fishing. Huge swarms of drones take out his Secret Service detail. One person is spared by facial recognition to be blamed for setting up the attack. It gives insight to how helpless people on the ground can be when targeted by swarms of drones.
That is England building those seaborne drones.
Russia has 3D printers on the frontlines, making customized drones....
They have evolved beyond the capacity of western R&D, because some individual mods his basic drone to fit the mission. No approval, just do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.