• perestroika@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    They would prefer to have more artillery, though. In case-by-case evaluations (e.g. enemy tank formation spotted maneuvering at comparable distance), it often takes a much longer time (e.g. over an hour vs. some minutes) to neutralize the same kind of an opponent with drones, compared to smart artillery shells (e.g. BONUS).

    Also, in some weather drones don’t fly.

    • frezik
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      The flip side of that flips side is that stationary artillery is now obsolete. Drones force the issue where you need to be able to take your shot and GTFO.

      • perestroika@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        From what I hear, they don’t always bother - if it’s a towed artillery piece, the circus of moving it is allegedly more dangerous than staying holed up.

        (the following is “as far as I know”, might be inaccurate) They dig their gun into a wooded area, put lots of antidrone nets overhead, keep ammunition far away in diverse locations, and don’t stay near the piece when they aren’t using it. If a drone comes, there’s a chance it gets caught in the nets or detonates prematurely. If it hits, there is a decent chance that the gun can be fixed. If another battery starts trying to hit it, they hit back.