How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[chrisl]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

What does mass have to do with the act of using smoke to properly cover an assault? Half the assaults we see have the Russians literally use very little smoke to at least conceal the flanks of their approach from ATGMs for instance. Its been a curiosity that I cannot quite explain. The most smoke we see most of the time is vehicle based. I am personally wondering where all the tube for smoke laying went to. 
 

I suspect you were already convinced and nothing I say will change that. M1E3 is still very much fresh and it will be a year or two before we know more solid data on what it will actually incorporate. Maybe it will get cancelled, who knows. I suspect it wont after they cancelled the 'run of the mill' upgrade that was Sepv4. Clearly the Americans have decided they need to adjust their tanks. 

Smoke is transparent.

[ArmouredTopHat]

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Russia is certainly trying to dump its tank fleet as fast as they can.

I would define that as a skill issue. They are also frantically building as many as they can to replace losses. 

 

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

so you repeat your point... so what?  Still think you haven't really read nor understood what has been communicated to you in innumerable very long posts on this thread.

I fully understand the point made, I just find it hard to believe that this is a worldwide issue of procurement and bureaucracies getting in the way...including the two participants of the two countries at war in question. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

4 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Smoke is transparent.

Do I really need to explain why smoke screens are useful when assaulting positions on a combat mission forum of all places? Obviously its not as useful with drones in the air, but in theory its at least going to disrupt infantry AT / ATGM use on the approaching vehicles. Its absence outside of occasional use is baffling. 

The Russians have the tubes and they must have the ammunition for it. So why dont they? Especially when it does have applications against thermal sights in the case of IR smoke. (Pretty sure the Russians have that in service)

[sburke]

13 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I fully understand the point made, I just find it hard to believe that this is a worldwide issue of procurement and bureaucracies getting in the way...including the two participants of the two countries at war in question. 

And I believe you still haven't understood his point.

[chrisl]

7 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Do I really need to explain why smoke screens are useful when assaulting positions on a combat mission forum of all places? Obviously its not as useful with drones in the air, but in theory its at least going to disrupt infantry AT / ATGM use on the approaching vehicles. Its absence outside of occasional use is baffling. 

The Russians have the tubes and they must have the ammunition for it. So why dont they? Especially when it does have applications against thermal sights in the case of IR smoke. (Pretty sure the Russians have that in service)

You partially answered your own question here.

Do you honestly believe that if only the RA were using more smoke they wouldn't be losing decades of soviet tank production for essentially no gain?  

And once more - how many videos do we see of tanks not even in combat yet, but getting blown up by FPVs on their way to the FEBA?  Are they going to travel under smoke all the way there?

Ground combat is headed the way of air combat - if you actually see the enemy with your naked eyeballs you've screwed up badly and let them get way too close.

[Vanir Ausf B]

13 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

The Russians have the tubes and they must have the ammunition for it. So why dont they? Especially when it does have applications against thermal sights in the case of IR smoke. (Pretty sure the Russians have that in service)

It's used extensively in vehicle-mounted smoke grenade launchers, but when I last researched this around 2015 for CMBS I was surprised to find no evidence that any country had artillery-delivered VIRSS.

[ArmouredTopHat]

7 minutes ago, chrisl said:

You partially answered your own question here.

Do you honestly believe that if only the RA were using more smoke they wouldn't be losing decades of soviet tank production for essentially no gain?  

And once more - how many videos do we see of tanks not even in combat yet, but getting blown up by FPVs on their way to the FEBA?  Are they going to travel under smoke all the way there?

One would figure it would help and be better than nothing. I'm not suggesting it would make or break an attack, but is it not the point to leverage as many advantages as possible when attacking a position and shrouding potential areas of defensive fire is a good idea? Stopping ATGM fire or machine gun fire into the attacking infantry seems an obvious plus to me.

 

8 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Ground combat is headed the way of air combat - if you actually see the enemy with your naked eyeballs you've screwed up badly and let them get way too close.

Except that a lot of the fighting is taking place at point blank range, infantry in the same trench and all that. Unlike air combat, ground combat still at the end of the day requires you to take and hold pieces of ground. 

 

14 minutes ago, sburke said:

And I believe you still haven't understood his point.

Ok then. Guess we should just agree to disagree. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

6 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

It's used extensively in vehicle-mounted smoke grenade launchers, but when I last researched this around 2015 for CMBS I was surprised to find no evidence that any country had artillery-delivered VIRSS.

I know the US have M825A1 WP shells that can supposedly have additives added to them to produce an IR smoke effect. I could of sworn the Russians had something of the like in service as well. Soviet doctrine certainly featured a -lot- of smoke. You would think that they would at least use it for all the small infantry assaults they do to make it a bit easier to get onto objectives without being shot. 

Edited Friday at 12:08 AM by ArmouredTopHat

[chrisl]

5 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Except that a lot of the fighting is taking place at point blank range, infantry in the same trench and all that. Unlike air combat, ground combat still at the end of the day requires you to take and hold pieces of ground. 

What was that you said earlier about being careful about observation bias?

How much of the tank combat is at point blank range?

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 minutes ago, chrisl said:

How much of the tank combat is at point blank range?

Its happened a few times. I was referring to combat in general. 

 

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

What was that you said earlier about being careful about observation bias?

What part of that is wrong though. If a Russian attack arrives at a point held by AFU forces, its usually a very close in fight. There are countless examples of this by this point. The whole smoke point is that it would help get more of that assault element onto the objective instead of being cut down half the time in the open. Surely it would be better than doing nothing?
 

 

Sorry for using tabloid sourced videos, just something I could quickly pull up without relying on Reddit. 

[chrisl]

8 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Its happened a few times. I was referring to combat in general. 

 

What part of that is wrong though. If a Russian attack arrives at a point held by AFU forces, its usually a very close in fight. There are countless examples of this by this point. The whole smoke point is that it would help get more of that assault element onto the objective instead of being cut down half the time in the open. Surely it would be better than doing nothing?
 

 

Sorry for using tabloid sourced videos, just something I could quickly pull up without relying on Reddit. 

Sure it happened "a few times".  Out of how many Russian tanks destroyed? 

The goal of armies has always been to avoid close combat by using ranged weapons.  It's best to keep your guys away from the pointy bits of the other guys weapons.  Spears.  Bows.  Guns.  Artillery.  Aircraft.  Aircraft with long range missiles.  And now ISR+missiles and FPV drones.  Until recently, Ukraine didn't have enough drones to send one into every hole that they might otherwise have to stick a hand around a corner and toss a grenade into.  We're going to see that situation for the guys clearing trenches start to improve a little now that they have enough to just chase russians around the battlefield.

[ArmouredTopHat]

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Sure it happened "a few times".  Out of how many Russian tanks destroyed? 

The goal of armies has always been to avoid close combat by using ranged weapons.  It's best to keep your guys away from the pointy bits of the other guys weapons.  Spears.  Bows.  Guns.  Artillery.  Aircraft.  Aircraft with long range missiles.  And now ISR+missiles and FPV drones.  Until recently, Ukraine didn't have enough drones to send one into every hole that they might otherwise have to stick a hand around a corner and toss a grenade into.  We're going to see that situation for the guys clearing trenches start to improve a little now that they have enough to just chase russians around the battlefield.

While its true that ranged combat has always been preferred, especially in modern war, plenty of combat happens at closer range, if only because of how intensive modern warfare is.

I dont have numbers but we have seen plenty of vehicles knocked out at close range from varieties of sources. NLAW claimed a lot of vehicles in the first year or so for instance and that is inherently a close range anti tank system. 

Again, if there is a fight over a piece of ground that usually means some sort of close range combat is involved. Hence the many many many go-pro videos of soldiers shooting at each other within 50m

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

So why does no one cancel such procurement if the tank is dead? Why has no one done so?

M1E3 was literally announced last year, it did not exist prior. SepV4 was cancelled in favour of it 

https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army_announces_plans_for_m1e3_abrams_tank_modernization

Because depending on how deeply into the procurement process the cancellation costs and political blowback can be too steep for government.  If it was announced last year, the procurement process has been in motion likely for 5-10 years for a major capital program.  If they are announcing it publicly then a contract has been already awarded, jobs promised and political points gained.  A SepV is a different issue as it is often an add on to existing contract as an upgrade, an option with cancellation protection.  My bet is that we are talking billions in investment in some manufacturing states and no one is going to cancel a program this well into development.  Large government programs happening today are by their nature stuff we planned years back, well before this war even started. 

The time to keep an eye on is ten years out from now.  Those decisions are being made now.  The bottom line is that procurement happening today is not really a good indication of where things are going, especially if there has been a major disruption.  Now the scramble will begin to try and protect these new tanks, which we have spent billions on. So expect all sorts of stuff in the works as government tries to buy its way out.

You have mentioned that you are worried that somehow people will stop spending money on tanks and go "all FPV". This is not a realistic scenario.  The money on tanks is already spent, the game now will be to try and get some use out of them as they become less useful.  The risk here is that black hole sucking all the funding away from emerging technologies like unmanned. The US has deep pockets and probably can get away with spending on multiple envelope lines.  Smaller nations will not have this luxury and that is where the crisis will happen.  So they will have to chose to buy new tanks or new technology for more closely.

Look, the fact that there are tanks in warehouses and people are pouring money into them is not evidence of the tanks usefulness.  It is evidence of the tanks perceived usefulness about 5-10 years ago. Strategic decisions take a long time to make.  The closed door sessions of what the hell to do about all of this are happening right now.  I work in this business and can tell you that they are just a confused and disagreeing as much as we are here.  The future of armour and mech warfare is not in the boardrooms at the Pentagon, it is happening on social media...and we are all watching it trying to interpret it.

[Général_Hiver]

23 hours ago, dan/california said:

The best scenario in CMSF is about this very thing. More pertinently to the current discussion, if there is one thing drones have proven great at it is turning M-kills into K-kills. 

Several decades ago I was involved with a study about diesel car maintenance for the California air resources board. To make very long story short. The most important factor by far in the emissions of diesel cars, at least then, was the injection pump. As the pumps wore out the emissions just get worse and worse. But there was huge political pressure to bring the diesel cars into the extant state vehicle inspection system. But that program had a what in todays dollars would be a ~1500 dollar limit on what an owner could be forced to spend. The pumps cost far more than that. So the state put in the program am and annoyed the heck out of absolutely everyone for approximately zero actual emission reductions. Indeed they eventually figured that out and just banned diesel cars. That report read just like this one. It has been mandated that the army will have a tank force, here are all the reasons it is a terrible idea, but the army will still have a tank force....

If we could weaponise bureaucratic inertia our problems would all be over very quickly.

What was the CMSF scenario you were referring to btw? I'm looking for a new one.

[ArmouredTopHat]

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Because depending on how deeply into the procurement process the cancellation costs and political blowback can be too steep for government.  If it was announced last year, the procurement process has been in motion likely for 5-10 years for a major capital program.  If they are announcing it publicly then a contract has been already awarded, jobs promised and political points gained.  A SepV is a different issue as it is often an add on to existing contract as an upgrade, an option with cancellation protection.  My bet is that we are talking billions in investment in some manufacturing states and no one is going to cancel a program this well into development.  Large government programs happening today are by their nature stuff we planned years back, well before this war even started. 

The time to keep an eye on is ten years out from now.  Those decisions are being made now.  The bottom line is that procurement happening today is not really a good indication of where things are going, especially if there has been a major disruption.  Now the scramble will begin to try and protect these new tanks, which we have spent billions on. So expect all sorts of stuff in the works as government tries to buy its way out.

You have mentioned that you are worried that somehow people will stop spending money on tanks and go "all FPV". This is not a realistic scenario.  The money on tanks is already spent, the game now will be to try and get some use out of them as they become less useful.  The risk here is that black hole sucking all the funding away from emerging technologies like unmanned. The US has deep pockets and probably can get away with spending on multiple envelope lines.  Smaller nations will not have this luxury and that is where the crisis will happen.  So they will have to chose to buy new tanks or new technology for more closely.

Look, the fact that there are tanks in warehouses and people are pouring money into them is not evidence of the tanks usefulness.  It is evidence of the tanks perceived usefulness about 5-10 years ago. Strategic decisions take a long time to make.  The closed door sessions of what the hell to do about all of this are happening right now.  I work in this business and can tell you that they are just a confused and disagreeing as much as we are here.  The future of armour and mech warfare is not in the boardrooms at the Pentagon, it is happening on social media...and we are all watching it trying to interpret it.

So in essence the US predicted the upcoming challenges of tank survivability a good while ago and are now acting out on it well within the expected timeframe of procurement. This seems like a good thing? You speak of black hole budget but the US budget is more than capable of investing into unmanned platforms just as readily as manned. If they can splash trillions for F-35 they can sure as hell afford both going forward. 

Do you have further information about the sorts of discussions behind closed doors currently? I can expect confusion but I am curious what if any consensus is likely to emerge. 

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Do I really need to explain why smoke screens are useful when assaulting positions on a combat mission forum of all places? Obviously its not as useful with drones in the air, but in theory its at least going to disrupt infantry AT / ATGM use on the approaching vehicles. Its absence outside of occasional use is baffling. 

The Russians have the tubes and they must have the ammunition for it. So why dont they? Especially when it does have applications against thermal sights in the case of IR smoke. (Pretty sure the Russians have that in service)

This is really a problem with your position - it is extremely skewed.  For example, nations are all buying tanks therefore tanks must still have utility within modern militaries.  Ok, I don’t really agree but let’s just say, “ok”.

Now, in this war neither side has really employed smoke despite the fact both have access to it.  You reply, as you have done elsewhere, is no doubt that it is because neither Russia or Ukraine know how to employ smoke. You see what happened there? You start with the “fact” that your premise is correct and then translate any and all phenomena in a way that aligns with this premise.  This is pretty much the same gimmick politics is using these days as well.  Frankly it is being used all over the internet.

Neither side of this war is massing armor to achieve forward momentum - Russian and Ukraine do not know how.

FPVs held off Russian assault all winter despite Russian EW - Russia did not have APS and point defence, which will stop them.

There hasn’t been more than a handful of DF tank engagements in this war, the vast majority of fires have been long range.  A symptom of neither side understanding combined arms so they stand off.

C4ISR shapes the battlefield and it is everywhere.  Paint and EW will take care of this.

No matter what the observation, it always goes back to a central premise that must be true.  This is the same schtick flat-earthers use. This is really not adding anything to the thread.  It was a nice distraction but frankly your opinion is just not worth enough to keep investing in this.  It is like arguing with a MAGA devotee, and we have had a few come through here.  It isn’t that we disagree it is that you are using the same tactics as those who wrap themselves in a “truth” and embrace ignorance to hold onto it.  This is not discourse and debate, it is preaching a faith.

I have theories. They are only theories and will need to continue to be tested. I do not have a “truth” because so much is disrupted.  We will continue to watch this war unfold and more data will become available that will confirm, deny or change these theories. Beyond that there is really no point on continuing this discussion.  You are not adding anything I do not already know, and you are refusing anything I may offer because it does not fit your version of the truth.

And time to move on I think.

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, Général_Hiver said:

If we could weaponise bureaucratic inertia our problems would all be over very quickly.

What was the CMSF scenario you were referring to btw? I'm looking for a new one.

I am blanking on the name of the scenario, but it was by George MC. It is about trying to protect a tank stuck in the mud in the middle of a village.

Finally found it

https://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/ShockForce/Scenarios/USMC Circle The Wagons SF2.html

It isn't easy....

 

 

 

[The_Capt]

13 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

So in essence the US predicted the upcoming challenges of tank survivability a good while ago and are now acting out on it well within the expected timeframe of procurement. This seems like a good thing? You speak of black hole budget but the US budget is more than capable of investing into unmanned platforms just as readily as manned. If they can splash trillions for F-35 they can sure as hell afford both going forward. 

Do you have further information about the sorts of discussions behind closed doors currently? I can expect confusion but I am curious what if any consensus is likely to emerge. 

LOL…see my follow up post…you did it again. Would it really matter what I told you?  You are just going to spin it back to your point of view.  Just like every other time.  Or is your theory that if I quit first that you somehow win? Is that the game here, a schoolyard version of “yes-no”?

No one forecasted the challenges to tank survivability we are seeing in this war.  We saw hints in Nagorno-Karabakh, we saw hints in Iraq and Lebanon, but no one predicted this scope and scale.  No consensus behind closed doors - but a whole lot of people seeing what they want to see.  The powers that be are just as confusing as everyone else.  The only point of consensus is that C4ISR has come of age and is going to have enormous impacts - scope, scale and nature of those impacts are still in debate.

[ArmouredTopHat]

17 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This is really a problem with your position - it is extremely skewed.  For example, nations are all buying tanks therefore tanks must still have utility within modern militaries.  Ok, I don’t really agree but let’s just say, “ok”.

Now, in this war neither side has really employed smoke despite the fact both have access to it.  You reply, as you have done elsewhere, is no doubt that it is because neither Russia or Ukraine know how to employ smoke. You see what happened there? You start with the “fact” that your premise is correct and then translate any and all phenomena in a way that aligns with this premise.  This is pretty much the same gimmick politics is using these days as well.  Frankly it is being used all over the internet.

Neither side of this war is massing armor to achieve forward momentum - Russian and Ukraine do not know how.

FPVs held off Russian assault all winter despite Russian EW - Russia did not have APS and point defence, which will stop them.

There hasn’t been more than a handful of DF tank engagements in this war, the vast majority of fires have been long range.  A symptom of neither side understanding combined arms so they stand off.

C4ISR shapes the battlefield and it is everywhere.  Paint and EW will take care of this.

No matter what the observation, it always goes back to a central premise that must be true.  This is the same schtick flat-earthers use. This is really not adding anything to the thread.  It was a nice distraction but frankly your opinion is just not worth enough to keep investing in this.  It is like arguing with a MAGA devotee, and we have had a few come through here.  It isn’t that we disagree it is that you are using the same tactics as those who wrap themselves in a “truth” and embrace ignorance to hold onto it.  This is not discourse and debate, it is preaching a faith.

I have theories. They are only theories and will need to continue to be tested. I do not have a “truth” because so much is disrupted.  We will continue to watch this war unfold and more data will become available that will confirm, deny or change these theories. Beyond that there is really no point on continuing this discussion.  You are not adding anything I do not already know, and you are refusing anything I may offer because it does not fit your version of the truth.

And time to move on I think.

Okay refuting my points is one thing. Comparing me to a flat earther or MAGA is another, just because I dare to have a different opinion than you. Saying my opinion is 'worth' nothing is pretty damn insulting and I am more than a little startled by this. 

I wont lie, I am little disappointed given I valued your input quite a bit. 

 

19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Now, in this war neither side has really employed smoke despite the fact both have access to it.  You reply, as you have done elsewhere, is no doubt that it is because neither Russia or Ukraine know how to employ smoke. You see what happened there? You start with the “fact” that your premise is correct and then translate any and all phenomena in a way that aligns with this premise.  This is pretty much the same gimmick politics is using these days as well.  Frankly it is being used all over the internet.

I never said this. I openly WONDERED why it was the case smoke was not used. I did not say it was because both sides 'do not know how to'. I am honestly more than a little tired of this attitude that because I point something out it automatically means that either side are not doing it properly. Stop it.

I wanted to debate more on this forum because I genuinely found the environment refreshing. I still do for the most part. I am getting tired of being told 'my argument sucks' or my argument boiling down to 'Russia sucks'. I want to learn and hear other viewpoints, not have people constantly deride my counter points because they happen to go against what you think. I have said it so many times that I agree on several points. That you cannot even give me the courtesy of at least being polite is honestly getting annoying at this point. 

[LongLeftFlank]

On 7/3/2024 at 4:50 PM, The_Capt said:

You want more than wiki deep, you pay for it.

LOL.  As we say in consulting, 'pay peanuts, get monkeys'

[chrisl]

2 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

While its true that ranged combat has always been preferred, especially in modern war, plenty of combat happens at closer range, if only because of how intensive modern warfare is.

I dont have numbers but we have seen plenty of vehicles knocked out at close range from varieties of sources. NLAW claimed a lot of vehicles in the first year or so for instance and that is inherently a close range anti tank system. 

Again, if there is a fight over a piece of ground that usually means some sort of close range combat is involved. Hence the many many many go-pro videos of soldiers shooting at each other within 50m

 

The tank was on shaky grounds at that point from NLAWs and Javelins.  NLAW has a range of ~ 1km.  Javelin to 2500 m.  That's not quite to the horizon, but it means that any piece of cover within 2.5 km can contain a fire and forget ATGM that has a high probability of one shot/one kill.  So at that point it was tough for tanks to go anywhere that infantry hadn't already cleared.  We saw a few tank ambushes, but no real tank battles, and most tanks were killed by ATGMs, artillery, or Bayraktars.

Already in the first year you couldn't send mass around anywhere because it would be spotted and hit by some combination of ATGMs, artillery, or Bayraktars, depending on the location.  The UA already had "Uber for artillery" so they could provide battery performance from a bunch of dispersed artillery. 

Then we saw the transition to drones. Now we see entire convoys getting wiped out by FPVs.  Or immobilized and partially wiped out by the FPVs, with an artillery chaser.

Given the proliferation of cameras and drones with cameras, don't you think we'd be seeing a lot of videos of tanks doing effective things if they were effective?  Wouldn't the UA want russian soldiers to see tanks making a mess of the RA so they'd quake in fear when they hear a tank or a round going overhead?

We've also seen a lot of video of UA soldiers clearing trenches the hard way, but are starting to see it done with drones.  Or at least with the drones being the ones that go into the line of fire at the high risk spots.

There were discussions thousands of pages ago:

"soon, every soldier/squad/platoon will have a drone/bunch of drones/etc".

"but they take up mass and space, what are they going to leave behind?"  

It's turning out that a backpack full of drones has enough precision that it can replace a lot of mass of crew served weapon and ammo.

[sburke]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

LOL.  As we say in consulting, 'pay peanuts, get monkeys'

or pay bucketloads and get a powerpoint.  

[Battlefront.com]

12 hours ago, cesmonkey said:

I will insert some quotes below on what Mashovets is saying about this:

https://t.me/zvizdecmanhustu/2003
 

https://t.me/zvizdecmanhustu/2006

 

What I'm taking away from this is that the Russians continue to switch back and forth between various efforts and, in doing so, make very little progress anywhere instead of (potentially) significant progress somewhere.  However, counter balancing this is that the Ukrainians are stretched thin so small gains by the Russians are inevitable because they can mass superior numbers for each of these attacks.  Therefore, the overall picture is a fragile one for Ukraine, even though it is losing little ground and causing disproportionate losses in any one specific area.

Is that what others are interpreting this as?

Steve

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

The tank was on shaky grounds at that point from NLAWs and Javelins.  NLAW has a range of ~ 1km.  Javelin to 2500 m.  That's not quite to the horizon, but it means that any piece of cover within 2.5 km can contain a fire and forget ATGM that has a high probability of one shot/one kill.  So at that point it was tough for tanks to go anywhere that infantry hadn't already cleared.  We saw a few tank ambushes, but no real tank battles, and most tanks were killed by ATGMs, artillery, or Bayraktars.

Its not as one sided as you might expect. The tanks were not exactly defenceless and AT crews did pay dearly. I still attribute the poor performance of the Russian tanks at this point of the conflict primarily poor performance of the Russian planning and tactical employment.  
 

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

Given the proliferation of cameras and drones with cameras, don't you think we'd be seeing a lot of videos of tanks doing effective things if they were effective?  Wouldn't the UA want russian soldiers to see tanks making a mess of the RA so they'd quake in fear when they hear a tank or a round going overhead?

Again, we do see tanks operating a lot, just with several constraints. The footage does exist if you go hunting for it, its just not as prevalent as say FPV. Its just hard to compare against a drones or FPVs which are both very camera heavy with footage easy to upload when you get a hit in. We see all the hits, few or none of the misses or interceptions which constitute a decent amount of FPV strikes. 
 

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

It's turning out that a backpack full of drones has enough precision that it can replace a lot of mass of crew served weapon and ammo.

This seems likely, agreed.

[ArmouredTopHat]