I’ve never seen “LAND NOW” before, but I haven’t seen every FPV attack video in existence either.
If I had a specific target I’d chosen, and drones with a specific range, I’d launch from near the outer limit of that range, too, because any decent soldier wants to be as far from the exciting part as possible.
Obviously not a factor here, there come a point where it doesn’t matter anymore. The drone operators at Creech AFB don’t move to the back side of the base.
Wow. One single campaign. As compared with 15,000 killed in the TEN YEARS of the Afghanistan Russian war.
Thing is, that’s the number the army is admitting to itself that it lost. Given the way in which reports are systematically falsified in the Russian army, the true number will be significantly higher. In the same post, Murz reported something like 170 armoured vehicles lost, while there are something like 300 visually confirmed losses reported by those who track such things. And I saw a report that one Russian officer had said on Telegram that the losses in Avdiivka were higher than the losses in Bahkmut.
Truly, a victory worthy of Pyrrhus of Epirus.
The article laments the fact that the use of drones likely means that Ukraine couldn’t spare the heavy weaponry required to simply level the entire site. But a single JDAM glide bomb costs tens of thousands of dollars, and these guys completed the mission for a few thousand bucks’ worth of drones. The drones give you more bang for your buck (or I guess the same bang for less bucks) - so on any occasion when drones could get the job done, why would anyone throw more expensive hardware at a target?
Left unsaid is how many drone attacks are needed to complete one successfully. For all we know, they are launching dozens of these each day, and get lucky once a week. Heavy weaponry probably has a much higher success rate.
Plus, the drones inherently give you pretty good Bomb Damage Assessment capabilities. We can see from the later drones that the earlier ones really did blow up the vehicles, and then the longer-ranged drones give you a nice overview of the building going up in flames. No need to speculate about what you hit, it’s all right there.
It was kind of amusing. The view from an FPV kill drone looking for (but not finding) something to kill. Reminded me of one of my cats showing up late to the feeding plate. The disappointment was palpable.
I was thinking that watching the drone footage of the ships that got sunk not too long ago. First drone gets a hit, you can see the explosion in the second drone’s video. Second drone gets close, and sees the big-assed dent in the side of the ship the first drone made, and says, “Hell, yeah, let’s aim for the hole!”
Third drone gets close, to see the ship’s bow pointing almost straight up. “Oh, yeah, I guess we got it…”
They probably become unstable and are a risk of catching fire.
I just want to know where I can find that Ukrainian cover of “Zombie.”
Thanks!
“Manny, I don’t think we should hit that mountain any more.”
“Why not, Mike?”
“Because it’s not there any more.”
Good one.
I’ve always hoped that somehow Mike would wake up again some day.
As to drones, I’ve seen at least one appeal for funds from a civilian group claiming to be making drones for the Ukrainians. How legit are things like that?
I understood that reference /SteveRogers.
First video I’ve seen of an M1 Abrams tank in action. The clip is brief and doesn’t show much but it’s new to me so I figured I’d share.
Another A-50 Mainstay Russian AWACS/Commo plane bites the dust. Ukrainian or friendly fire, still dead, still good.