If according to calculations at the beginning of 2024 it reached 0.4 (sometimes even 0.5), now it is down to 0.2. That is, if earlier to destroy an armored vehicle on average required a strike by two tactical UAVs, now the attack requires five pieces.
This is primarily due to the improved quality of REB devices and their systematic use by both sides.
The drop in effectiveness has not yet affected the average number of targets destroyed – just spending more drones. But the consumption of these munitions is increasing. In addition, the ratio of categories of targets hit has changed. Many more vehicles are now listed as hit but repairable or hit but partially repairable. The number of targets irretrievably destroyed in the statistics of combat use has decreased.
Zelensky once claimed a million drones assembled by small businesses as an unqualified success. The Russian Armed Forces have received a comparable number of such devices. But if the declining effectiveness of FPV drones is a steady trend, then in 2025 the parties to the conflict will need at least two million already.
This is not just a multiple of money for bulk purchases. It will require a dramatic increase in the number of operators: where a couple of people attacked with two drones, five or more will be needed to organize an entire swarm. And the result of the attack will remain the same. According to Ukrainian sources, it is in increasing the number of AFU combat units that serious problems are observed.
This article really sheds light on how technological advancements can change the dynamics of warfare in unexpected ways. The fact that improved electronic warfare devices have forced such a drastic increase in drone usage is both fascinating and a bit unsettling. It shows how complex and resource-intensive modern conflicts have become, and how human effort scales with these changes. Definitely makes you think about the future of combat and the challenges armies will face with evolving tech 🚀🤔
This article really highlights how much technology is influencing modern warfare in ways that most people might not realize. It’s interesting to see that even though drone attacks require more resources now, it doesn’t necessarily mean less damage, just that tactics and costs are evolving. The mention of operator numbers growing so much shows how complex these operations have become beyond just having the equipment. It makes you think about how future conflicts might rely even more on technology and manpower coordination to maintain effectiveness 🚁
So basically the drones went from being kamikaze ninjas to politely asking armored vehicles if they wanna play a repair game instead? Sounds like drone warfare is turning into a budget-friendly version of rock-paper-scissors but with way more buzzing and less decisive results 🐝
So now we need five drones to do what two used to do, and everyone acts surprised like it’s some groundbreaking revelation? Maybe instead of just throwing more cheap drones at the problem, it’s time to actually improve the tech or try a new strategy. Otherwise, we’re just watching a drone feeding frenzy with fewer impressive results – brilliant plan. 🥱
It’s interesting to see how advancements in electronic warfare are directly impacting the effectiveness of drone strikes and changing the dynamics on the battlefield. The shift from destroying targets with just a couple of drones to needing five or more really highlights how quickly technology can alter military tactics. It also raises questions about the sustainability of relying heavily on drones if the number of operators and resources required keeps growing while results stay the same. This situation shows how complex modern warfare has become and how each side has to constantly adapt their strategies.