I think most people overestimate the drone's value. This has happened many times in the past. When the machine gun was widely used in WWI, people said the previous weapon was outdated; the machine gun is the future. It occurred again with tanks, mines, aircraft, etc. AFAIK, mortars appeared in 16 century, cannons in 15 century. Today, we also see cannons and mortars on the battlefield. They aren't extinct on the battlefield. Also, drones can't replace mines. Personally, I think that drones will find their place on the battlefield. The variety of weapons will change the tactics and make them more complex.
El problema en occidente (en especial EE.UU) es que las empresas pesan mucho más que la necesidad real de un ejército, no me puedo imaginar a Boeing o Lockheed Martin haciendo lo mismo que hacen los pequeños pero importantes proyectos ucranianos.
Ni hablar de los consorcios europeos, que tardan tanto tiempo para decidir qué países se incorporan y qué nombre ponerle a los proyectos.
What always fascinated me is the rate of technological progress in the military during wars. Airplane evolution pace in 1914-1918 or 1939-1945 was way faster than in peaceful years. Same goes for tanks in WW2. And nowadays we see unmanned vessels evolving rapidly.
However, I have a feeling that in WW2 years the progress was greatly supported by industry - there was a multitude of new models of tanks and aircrafts produced every year, while nowadays such flexibility only refers to "small" industry (UAVs, etc) - we don't see new tank or aircrafts models designed. Bohdana howitzer is a notable exception, and Neptun missile system too. Barring them, there are few "heavy" arms development visible.
Well, I don't think "western" companies can really establish a quick live-testing & feedback loop without having an active warzone nearby (or at least in the same time zone). For them, it's still technically "peacetime".
Any hierarchical organisation will tend over time to rigidity and procedures, such that these become its over-arching raison d'être. But wartime, as Vadim points out, produces explosive and revolutionary changes, usually in spite of the prevailing military ethos. Certainly in WWII Churchill went out on a limb to encourage 'out-of-the-box' thinking, bypassing established military command structures.
Whether western nations still possess the necessary industrial wherewithal to exploit these opportunities is a moot point; my own view is that 'our' leaders have either been complicit with the Russian bandit regime or simply complacent, so continue largely to push the problem as far down the road as they can while blowing hot air in the usual orifices.
I believe the phrase 'zombie idiots' has been trade-marked by Tom..?
I call that an Agile approach. It's even better with a flat hierarchy and decision-making based on the situation at hand (Just-in-Time). More effective communication/synchronization with other teams, especially with stakeholders, would also be crucial - not as Executive, but as Coordinator of synchronization with other teams. That's my ideal scenario, though. The current situation at our front line doesn't look promising in that regard and it will likely worsen over time. Our leadership team never learned Agile and will probably struggle to adapt.
Thank you so much. It gives a bit of hope. But I see Ukrainians loosing grounds despite all their tremendous efforts. Not because of them albeit many mistakes are being made through mismanaging within the military hierachies but because the "European willing coalition" is faltering. The Americans are out. The latter is cristal clear. --- Is there anybody who could explain whether Ukraine can buy from private American companies or not ? I read that they are doing this already.
Nice background article, but IMHO a little bit too optimistic.
Why?
Drones are a very useful addition to the battle field, but they will neither replace some other weapon system nor are they the solution for all the problems Ukraine has on the battle field.
The cheaper the drone itself, the easier to make quick changes and it is good that Ukraine is able to make quick changes.
But that doesn't work for bigger and more complicated versions.
I agree that there is too much bureaucratic "waterhead", but that is common to varying degrees in ALL states, as there are always personsal interests and hungry mouths and greedy hands, which want to be fed.
Thanks Benjamin, do you see the Ukrainians being faster and better than the Russians in innovation? Sometimes it looks but the margin doesn’t seem that high - considering fiber, recon drones and current tactics with the “Shaheds”.
Yes. But everyday the war continues the Russians learn lessons. Ukraine will always have a speed and innovation advantage. But that advantage shrinks everyday.
We should not despair. I believe, based on some conversations with people inside, that the UK military at least is devoting enormous effort to staying close to what goes on in Ukraine, and putting its best minds into learning the lesson this war has to teach us.
I'm wondering if there was any link between the willingness to conduct research and adaptation capabilities were allowed by the finance and or equipment Ukraine received?
I think there's always a willingness. For instance poor rice farmers in SE Asia had willingness but no/little money or equipment or space (capability) to conduct large scale (million units per year of x) of adaptation.
Hobart's Funnies in WWII were an example which inluded many special tanks used on D-Day such swimming tanks, flame thrower tanks, mine clearing tanks etc .
They were developed to address specific problems identified during the Dieppe raid.
Ben: very nice, a 'Namaste' for you my friend.
Thank you.
I think that the drone îs the major war development and inovation îs auxiliary.
The drone îs now the pocket Swiss knife: has mortar, ATGM, sniper, revin capabilities.
The major inovations were bombing drone and ATGM drone
I think most people overestimate the drone's value. This has happened many times in the past. When the machine gun was widely used in WWI, people said the previous weapon was outdated; the machine gun is the future. It occurred again with tanks, mines, aircraft, etc. AFAIK, mortars appeared in 16 century, cannons in 15 century. Today, we also see cannons and mortars on the battlefield. They aren't extinct on the battlefield. Also, drones can't replace mines. Personally, I think that drones will find their place on the battlefield. The variety of weapons will change the tactics and make them more complex.
The canon wiped out feudal barons and their castles.
The riffled gun has eliminated mass infantry în columns and lines.
The machine gun has destroyed maneuver unless you have an armored vehicle.
The drone îs now forcing all soldiers and vehicles in underground bunkers.
These are big developments which worked even in primitive variants
It's an old rule in nature: not the strongest will survive, but the one who better adapts to the environment
Muy bueno Benjamin.
El problema en occidente (en especial EE.UU) es que las empresas pesan mucho más que la necesidad real de un ejército, no me puedo imaginar a Boeing o Lockheed Martin haciendo lo mismo que hacen los pequeños pero importantes proyectos ucranianos.
Ni hablar de los consorcios europeos, que tardan tanto tiempo para decidir qué países se incorporan y qué nombre ponerle a los proyectos.
What always fascinated me is the rate of technological progress in the military during wars. Airplane evolution pace in 1914-1918 or 1939-1945 was way faster than in peaceful years. Same goes for tanks in WW2. And nowadays we see unmanned vessels evolving rapidly.
However, I have a feeling that in WW2 years the progress was greatly supported by industry - there was a multitude of new models of tanks and aircrafts produced every year, while nowadays such flexibility only refers to "small" industry (UAVs, etc) - we don't see new tank or aircrafts models designed. Bohdana howitzer is a notable exception, and Neptun missile system too. Barring them, there are few "heavy" arms development visible.
Good points!
Well, I don't think "western" companies can really establish a quick live-testing & feedback loop without having an active warzone nearby (or at least in the same time zone). For them, it's still technically "peacetime".
This true. Hence we need to hook in more closely to Ukraine's feedback loop.
Any hierarchical organisation will tend over time to rigidity and procedures, such that these become its over-arching raison d'être. But wartime, as Vadim points out, produces explosive and revolutionary changes, usually in spite of the prevailing military ethos. Certainly in WWII Churchill went out on a limb to encourage 'out-of-the-box' thinking, bypassing established military command structures.
Whether western nations still possess the necessary industrial wherewithal to exploit these opportunities is a moot point; my own view is that 'our' leaders have either been complicit with the Russian bandit regime or simply complacent, so continue largely to push the problem as far down the road as they can while blowing hot air in the usual orifices.
I believe the phrase 'zombie idiots' has been trade-marked by Tom..?
I call that an Agile approach. It's even better with a flat hierarchy and decision-making based on the situation at hand (Just-in-Time). More effective communication/synchronization with other teams, especially with stakeholders, would also be crucial - not as Executive, but as Coordinator of synchronization with other teams. That's my ideal scenario, though. The current situation at our front line doesn't look promising in that regard and it will likely worsen over time. Our leadership team never learned Agile and will probably struggle to adapt.
Thank you so much. It gives a bit of hope. But I see Ukrainians loosing grounds despite all their tremendous efforts. Not because of them albeit many mistakes are being made through mismanaging within the military hierachies but because the "European willing coalition" is faltering. The Americans are out. The latter is cristal clear. --- Is there anybody who could explain whether Ukraine can buy from private American companies or not ? I read that they are doing this already.
Nice background article, but IMHO a little bit too optimistic.
Why?
Drones are a very useful addition to the battle field, but they will neither replace some other weapon system nor are they the solution for all the problems Ukraine has on the battle field.
The cheaper the drone itself, the easier to make quick changes and it is good that Ukraine is able to make quick changes.
But that doesn't work for bigger and more complicated versions.
I agree that there is too much bureaucratic "waterhead", but that is common to varying degrees in ALL states, as there are always personsal interests and hungry mouths and greedy hands, which want to be fed.
Excellent write up. Thank you, Ben!
"Necessity is the mother of invention". Ukraine is in a position of "win or die".
Thanks Benjamin, do you see the Ukrainians being faster and better than the Russians in innovation? Sometimes it looks but the margin doesn’t seem that high - considering fiber, recon drones and current tactics with the “Shaheds”.
Yes. But everyday the war continues the Russians learn lessons. Ukraine will always have a speed and innovation advantage. But that advantage shrinks everyday.
We should not despair. I believe, based on some conversations with people inside, that the UK military at least is devoting enormous effort to staying close to what goes on in Ukraine, and putting its best minds into learning the lesson this war has to teach us.
I'm wondering if there was any link between the willingness to conduct research and adaptation capabilities were allowed by the finance and or equipment Ukraine received?
I think there's always a willingness. For instance poor rice farmers in SE Asia had willingness but no/little money or equipment or space (capability) to conduct large scale (million units per year of x) of adaptation.
Hobart's Funnies in WWII were an example which inluded many special tanks used on D-Day such swimming tanks, flame thrower tanks, mine clearing tanks etc .
They were developed to address specific problems identified during the Dieppe raid.