Excellent first part, but here is one point, where I have a slightly different opionion. It is not cost effective to use drones against meat wave attacks in the strength of a platoon. The most effective way is by a machine gun (for this task they were originally invented).
As far as I know (please feel free to correct me) Ukraine uses only light infantry without machine guns. I am used to an organization with one machine gun per squad.
Of course the machine gun doesn't stay at the same place during defence, for this one has alternating and supplementary positions.
A well placed machine gun wipes out a platoon attacking in the open (like the NK soldiers do) in less than 4 seconds.
Could be their preference for mobility and attempts to keep logistics easier as for example a MG 3 has 12 kg weight and uses different ammunition in comparison to the automatic rifles.
Maybe Tom Cooper can bring some light into that matter.
A single machine gun defending against 40 troops moving in flat, open ground would be very effective. Two people with rifles would be very effective. The problem is, there simply aren't enough troops to cover a sector with continuous observation and direct fire on the ground. It's not a firmly held line when compared to WW1 or WW2. Thin lines are held against small assault groups. When an asault group finds a weakness and survives its attack, more small groups are sent to that gap to expand the crack to widen and deepen it. When large assault groups are sent they invite a greater response, such as indirect fire, and suffer higher casualty rates.
Drone patrols provide a significant portion of a Ukrainian unit's observation capabilities. In the videos where indirect fire was used, it was very effective against troops in the open and those that sought cover in the woods. There isn't enough ammo to provide defensive fires in the manner that NATO trains.
It costs about $100 per drone bomb drop mission, and against infantry, it costs about $300 per drone FPV attack. If you cause, on average, one casualty with a $3k 155mm shell, you're doing well. If you add up the US and EU military aid, not even factoring in Ukrainian expenditures, and divide it by the Russian casualties, it's about $140k for each Russian soldier killed or wounded.
The $100 and $300 costs only factor in the drone components. For the entire war effort you need to consider pay, food, fuel and other factors that put those components into action.
Any way you look at it, drones are a cost effective way to wage war. But there are other factors to consider. Drones are very mobile, so whenever the enemy is detected, you can quickly send drones to that location. You can reinforce the drones by sending infantry or vehicular units to the site that is threatened, and you can use these forces to eliminate any survivors of the assault force.
And they have also become a leading source of establishing minefields, another effective defensive tool.
But drones have limitations. Weather events hamper both observations and operations. The number and quality of drone operators, and number of drones on hand, can limit the rate of attack. Each drone needs two radio frequencies for video and drone commands. Operators within a unit and between different drone units must coordinate on frequency usage. And then the enemy can deny the use of a frequency through jamming. They only need to disrupt one of the two frequencies being used by the drone to bring it down and that is the most common reason for drone failure.
So there are a lot of factors to consider when defending a position. The fact that so many positions are heavily defending by drones implies that it is one of the most effective ways to defeat the enemy.
I agree on most facts and they are not new to me as I am following Tom Cooper and your "Don's Weekly" from the very beginning.
Further it was also from the very beginning clear from me th at is not a simple repetition of WW II as the numbers of the soldiers are much smaller.
But the very last conclusion isn't based on logic, as describing an existing behavior does not mean that it is necessarily the optimal method.
For me it just shows that it is the method used by Ukraine now for what so ever reason (i.e. doctrine, preference, possibilities).
Further wasn't my question aiming at the empty spots in the front line, which exist without any doubts, as there aren't simply enough soldiers for the length of the front line. I was just referencing to those situations were a handful of defenders are overrun
by attacks in the strength of one or two platoons (NK style of attack).
The preferred range for an machine gun is 600m. If one tries to fight a platoon sized attack with a handful of defenders just with automatic rifles at this distance it won't work as one can clearly see, because that is was actually happens.
My guess is that a MG position would be discovered and targeted by enemy drones as soon as it opens fire. This could be a serious issue for heavy MG, perhaps not that much for light MG.
Thanks for the update. Interesting as always. I understand you don’t want to report on this: “ Principally because there was nothing ‘better’ to start with but lamenting about Zelensky’s entirely pointless meetings with EU’s chieftains, or Ukrainian UAV-strikes on skyscrapers in Russia (‘in retaliation’ for intentional Russian strikes on multiple apartment buildings in Kyiv)”, that is ok. You should write about what you consider important and what’s not covered elsewhere. Still I think you are partly wrong regarding Zelenskyys meetings. They may not be efficient, but I think it is important to have such meetings. They get Ukraine into the news. Which is important to keep whatever support Ukraine gets. And while you can argue that it’s insufficient it’s still better than nothing. You know public opinion is a short lived fickle thing. It needs constant reinforcement. So that part of his job Zelenskyy tries to do. (Not saying you should report on it though. Just that it has merits.) Regarding Ukrainian attacks on Russian skyscrapers, that was actually news to me. And here I thought myself well informed. Ok, noted, see if I can dig yp some information.
"or Ukrainian UAV-strikes on skyscrapers in Russia (‘in retaliation’ for intentional Russian strikes on multiple apartment buildings in Kyiv);"
Deep State is in despair: Trump is coming. Locally, UA command is doing its best to provoke inadequate (tactical nukes) reaction from the Russian side. They are striking skyscrapers (could have done it long ago), recently hit with Himars civilian college in Kursk region and centre of Donetsk, shooting ATACAMs and SS deep in RU territories. They need urgent escalation. Must admit it's one of the few cases when RU authourities act properly and do not overreact.
Anyway it's still 1 month to go. So, there's a gossip that UA will try to provoke Belarus by strikes. Recently US authorities advised US citizens to leave Belarus at once. They do know smth.
No, but it sounds like his limited attention is on the Western Hemisphere where opponents are weak and non nuclear. Look out Canada, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela! Oh, and he wants Greenland too!
Thank you
more great news from Syrskyi
https://x.com/marybezuhla/status/1871157615075451284
Excellent first part, but here is one point, where I have a slightly different opionion. It is not cost effective to use drones against meat wave attacks in the strength of a platoon. The most effective way is by a machine gun (for this task they were originally invented).
As far as I know (please feel free to correct me) Ukraine uses only light infantry without machine guns. I am used to an organization with one machine gun per squad.
Of course the machine gun doesn't stay at the same place during defence, for this one has alternating and supplementary positions.
A well placed machine gun wipes out a platoon attacking in the open (like the NK soldiers do) in less than 4 seconds.
Interesting question. I have had the same thought. Maybe lack of machineguns? Ammo? Training? Maybe more risky? But I would love a comment on this.
Could be their preference for mobility and attempts to keep logistics easier as for example a MG 3 has 12 kg weight and uses different ammunition in comparison to the automatic rifles.
Maybe Tom Cooper can bring some light into that matter.
Maybe no machinegun right time in exact place? :-)
Likely. But it doesn’t seem to be the strategy to get machineguns in place.
A single machine gun defending against 40 troops moving in flat, open ground would be very effective. Two people with rifles would be very effective. The problem is, there simply aren't enough troops to cover a sector with continuous observation and direct fire on the ground. It's not a firmly held line when compared to WW1 or WW2. Thin lines are held against small assault groups. When an asault group finds a weakness and survives its attack, more small groups are sent to that gap to expand the crack to widen and deepen it. When large assault groups are sent they invite a greater response, such as indirect fire, and suffer higher casualty rates.
Drone patrols provide a significant portion of a Ukrainian unit's observation capabilities. In the videos where indirect fire was used, it was very effective against troops in the open and those that sought cover in the woods. There isn't enough ammo to provide defensive fires in the manner that NATO trains.
It costs about $100 per drone bomb drop mission, and against infantry, it costs about $300 per drone FPV attack. If you cause, on average, one casualty with a $3k 155mm shell, you're doing well. If you add up the US and EU military aid, not even factoring in Ukrainian expenditures, and divide it by the Russian casualties, it's about $140k for each Russian soldier killed or wounded.
The $100 and $300 costs only factor in the drone components. For the entire war effort you need to consider pay, food, fuel and other factors that put those components into action.
Any way you look at it, drones are a cost effective way to wage war. But there are other factors to consider. Drones are very mobile, so whenever the enemy is detected, you can quickly send drones to that location. You can reinforce the drones by sending infantry or vehicular units to the site that is threatened, and you can use these forces to eliminate any survivors of the assault force.
And they have also become a leading source of establishing minefields, another effective defensive tool.
But drones have limitations. Weather events hamper both observations and operations. The number and quality of drone operators, and number of drones on hand, can limit the rate of attack. Each drone needs two radio frequencies for video and drone commands. Operators within a unit and between different drone units must coordinate on frequency usage. And then the enemy can deny the use of a frequency through jamming. They only need to disrupt one of the two frequencies being used by the drone to bring it down and that is the most common reason for drone failure.
So there are a lot of factors to consider when defending a position. The fact that so many positions are heavily defending by drones implies that it is one of the most effective ways to defeat the enemy.
I agree on most facts and they are not new to me as I am following Tom Cooper and your "Don's Weekly" from the very beginning.
Further it was also from the very beginning clear from me th at is not a simple repetition of WW II as the numbers of the soldiers are much smaller.
But the very last conclusion isn't based on logic, as describing an existing behavior does not mean that it is necessarily the optimal method.
For me it just shows that it is the method used by Ukraine now for what so ever reason (i.e. doctrine, preference, possibilities).
Further wasn't my question aiming at the empty spots in the front line, which exist without any doubts, as there aren't simply enough soldiers for the length of the front line. I was just referencing to those situations were a handful of defenders are overrun
by attacks in the strength of one or two platoons (NK style of attack).
The preferred range for an machine gun is 600m. If one tries to fight a platoon sized attack with a handful of defenders just with automatic rifles at this distance it won't work as one can clearly see, because that is was actually happens.
My guess is that a MG position would be discovered and targeted by enemy drones as soon as it opens fire. This could be a serious issue for heavy MG, perhaps not that much for light MG.
Thanks for the update. Interesting as always. I understand you don’t want to report on this: “ Principally because there was nothing ‘better’ to start with but lamenting about Zelensky’s entirely pointless meetings with EU’s chieftains, or Ukrainian UAV-strikes on skyscrapers in Russia (‘in retaliation’ for intentional Russian strikes on multiple apartment buildings in Kyiv)”, that is ok. You should write about what you consider important and what’s not covered elsewhere. Still I think you are partly wrong regarding Zelenskyys meetings. They may not be efficient, but I think it is important to have such meetings. They get Ukraine into the news. Which is important to keep whatever support Ukraine gets. And while you can argue that it’s insufficient it’s still better than nothing. You know public opinion is a short lived fickle thing. It needs constant reinforcement. So that part of his job Zelenskyy tries to do. (Not saying you should report on it though. Just that it has merits.) Regarding Ukrainian attacks on Russian skyscrapers, that was actually news to me. And here I thought myself well informed. Ok, noted, see if I can dig yp some information.
Thanks Tom. Latest news - encirclement of Ukrainian troops near Makarovka declared fake! https://unn.ua/news/osuv-khortytsia-sprostovuie-informatsiiu-pro-otochennia-viisk-u-makarivtsi
They've denied the encirclment of the battalion from the 79th Airborne at Hannivka - too.
....and that one week after that battalion was boxed out... :rolleyes:
Sorry, I do not trust this GenStab-U a single word any more.
"or Ukrainian UAV-strikes on skyscrapers in Russia (‘in retaliation’ for intentional Russian strikes on multiple apartment buildings in Kyiv);"
Deep State is in despair: Trump is coming. Locally, UA command is doing its best to provoke inadequate (tactical nukes) reaction from the Russian side. They are striking skyscrapers (could have done it long ago), recently hit with Himars civilian college in Kursk region and centre of Donetsk, shooting ATACAMs and SS deep in RU territories. They need urgent escalation. Must admit it's one of the few cases when RU authourities act properly and do not overreact.
Anyway it's still 1 month to go. So, there's a gossip that UA will try to provoke Belarus by strikes. Recently US authorities advised US citizens to leave Belarus at once. They do know smth.
And do you think Trump will be worse for Ukraine than Biden?
Worse is a wrong word. Realistic and more sane.
I'm genuinely intrigued - what might a more realistic and sane response to the war by Trump look like?
Push hard both sides for the peace. He has enough means for that.
You're right, he has enough means to do that, and people are slowly bringing him to the realisation that he has those means.
No, but it sounds like his limited attention is on the Western Hemisphere where opponents are weak and non nuclear. Look out Canada, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela! Oh, and he wants Greenland too!
Can you give me some of whatever the fuck you are smoking?
He's high on Imperium.
Dear Donald Hill, thank you for your always factual and informative contributions. They show respect not only for the topic, but also for the reader.
PS. Merry Christmas (if that means anything to you).