Ukraine is developing SW that will allow the drone to pursue a designated target.
Find and designate a target outside of the signals jammed area around a tank.
Let the drone loose (set the hounds free) and the drone will attack the target
even if the signals have been jammed completely.
The overwatch drone watches to confirm the kill or a need for a second attack.
The “mobile shed” tanks often require a few drones to open a path in to the
actual tank armour.
1 Like
It is a feature in drones that allows them to automatically return to a pre-defined home location, typically the takeoff point, in case of low battery,
I was previously sort of aware of this, the article suggests improved automatic battery monitoring could activate an earlier RTB with greater chance of success; this would be necessary if the RTB is to be initiated from a semi-powered down state. This could be combined with the capacity to select from several alternative landing sites and different approach vectors to each of these…
Back in the 1960s there was a Sci-Fi comic strip in the daily rag called “Jeff Hawke”; one storyline had him investigating the disappearance of automated cargo aircraft. It transpired these were programmed by a multi-use supercomputer, other programmes it had run were to identify toxic/lethal products, and another to identify and classify emergency landing sites. Being smarter than people thought, it combined these and when one of the robo-planes was loaded with something it judged inimical to humanity’s wellbeing the computer would divert it to an unmanned landing site as far from human contact as it could possibly reach…
Cheers,
M
1 Like
Or it’s intentional. They let their old tanks that have little value in modern war to be sacrificed in order to force Ukraine, to eat up their stockpiles of advanced weapons. That’s attrition warfare.
Edro
1 Like
Thought Experiment based on guess work
Cost of One M10 Booker: ~$12 million per unit.
For ~$12 Million, You Could Deploy Instead:
System Unit Cost What You Get
Switchblade 600 ~$70,000 ~170 units – loitering munitions/ATGM capability
Coyote Block 2 ~$125,000 ~96 units – ISR + anti-drone + strike roles
Small Recon Drones ~$65,000 ~185 units – real-time battlefield intelligence
DJI Mavic 3 Pro (modded) ~$3,000 ~4,000 units – swarming recon or low-cost kamikaze roles
U.S. Soldiers (6 months) ~$500,000 ~24 trained combat troops for six months in-theater
For $24 million, what more effective?
24 soliders plus drones
24 soliders with a M10 Booker
two M10 Bookers
48 soldiers.
Etc
The real question isn’t “Can drones hold ground?”
It’s “What’s the smartest way to support the troops who do?”
Seems $12 or $24 million buys a lot more capability when it’s spread across systems designed to survive and dominate in today’s ISR-driven battlefield.
3 Likes
AB, in honesty, you would have to factor in all of the supporting equipment necessary to operate these machines. There is no example of a drone holding ground. A drone is a tool in the soldier’s chest, just like a tank is.
Now I know that a favorite argument here is the cost of tanks vs drones, to justify using drones instead of tanks. But when it comes to fighting wars, you will pay whatever it takes to reduce casualties. If tanks cost a lot, the price is worth it if its offensive firepower saves your troops lives. The U.S spares no expense to equip their soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines with the best equipment money can buy.
Edro
1 Like
2 Likes
Let’s be honest about what the American war machine is—and always has been—designed to do:
It’s not built around elegance, or minimizing total destruction. It’s built to mass-produce death, overwhelm the enemy, and grind opposing forces into submission. From the industrial slaughter of WWII to the relentless shock operations in Iraq, American doctrine emphasizes firepower, saturation, and sustained logistical dominance.
Precision and preservation only exist when superiority is absolute. When it’s not? Volume of force and speed of escalation take over.
If you think every U.S. weapons platform gets a blank check because it might “save lives,” go ask the ghosts of:
the infantry divisions fed into Hurtgen Forest with minimal armor
the crews of hundreds of Sherman tanks who fought outgunned because strategic logistics trumped protection
the Iraq and Afghanistan combat teams who were told they had the best gear while IEDs shredded MRAPs and drones got neglected for a decade
The machine is built to win wars, not feelings. And if new platforms—like loitering drones, mesh-networked ISR, and robotic combat teams—can break the enemy faster, they’ll get the funding. Not because they’re noble, but because they’re effective.
2 Likes
Hardly likely.
They started with their best equipment in 2022 and since then it has been going steadily downhill. Now the soldiers ride into battle in modified CIVILIAN Lada cars instead of BMP’s since the BMP’s are in short supply.
Logistic supply runs are done with donkeys in some units, their trucks and cars have vanished.
Some new equipment reaches the front and gets blown to pieces which proves that new equipment is being used.
Russias problem is that they can not produce heavy military equipment in sufficient numbers.
1 Like
In that case a rifle or a machine gun doesn’t hold any ground either.
Let’s say it out loud all together now:
We can save a lot of cash by not buying rifles,
we buy a few Bookers instead.
1 Like
Let’s be honest about what the American war machine is—and always has been—designed to do:
If we are going to be honest, lets start by understanding what the American people demand. If we as a country send our loved ones to bleed for us, we want our country to provide the absolute best weapons and equipment we can, period! If we send them tanks, it’s going to be the best tank in the world. If we send them artillery, it’s the best artillery piece in the world. If we send them drones, they will be the absolute best drones in the world. If we send them to fight, we give them the absolute best training, and the best of everything they could possibly need. This is the least we could do for them
If you think every U.S. weapons platform gets a blank check because it might “save lives,”………
Lets be real, nobody said anything about a blank check. What we want, is to give our troops the absolute best of everything we can, if we ask them to bleed for us. It doesn’t mean we throw money at it and hope for the best. Our SECDEF was charged with getting rid of waste and fraud in the military, so ultimately the money we spend is put to better use, for the men and women who serve. And no! We won’t put up with losing one solider because of faulty or corrupt equipment.
About a week ago, we visited DC and we had the opportunity to visit the Vietnam memorial. A friend was with me, he was a young Sailor during Nam, so he didn’t see combat, but he brought up the early M16 rifle, and I told him at the time, many of the names on that wall, were there because of that rifle. Of course, the M16 eventually became a very popular weapon and it’s civvy version, the AR15 is one of the best selling
rifles in America today, but when it was rolled out as the M16, it was prone to jamming and misfiring. And many soldiers and Marines lost their lives when their lives depended on it. The M16 should had been exhaustively tested and retested, before it was ever given to our troops at a time of war. This can never happen again!
Edro
In that case a rifle or a machine gun doesn’t hold any ground either.
Let’s say it out loud all together now:
We can save a lot of cash by not buying rifles,
we buy a few Bookers instead.
No, you know better. Rifles and MGs are also tools which soldiers use, often to take and hold ground.
Edro
You ought to know better:
A drone is also a tool in the soldiers hands.
If a soldier operating a rifle can hold ground then so can a soldier operating a drone.
Taking ground: The modern soldier uses drones to blast the enemy out of their foxholes.
Holding ground: The modern soldier uses drones to destroy the enemy before the enemy
gets within rifle range.
Close air support at the soldiers fingertips
and a tool for artillery fire control
and a tool for reconnaisance
Erdo, our whole conversation in two panels…
This isn’t a Hallmark special.
You keep dressing up sentiment as strategy—but emotion isn’t a substitute for analysis.
We’re not debating whether we care about the troops—we’re debating whether legacy platforms like the Booker justify their cost and survivability in a drone-saturated battlespace.
T-72B3 vs 1 drone:
I suspect the life expectancy of a Ukranian drone operator is currently way longer than a Russian tank crewman. I know which job I would rather have.
1 Like
**You ought to know better: **
A drone is also a tool in the soldiers hands.
I didn’t say it wasn’t, in fact if you look back a few posts, I did say that drones can be an integral part of tanks artillery and infantry
If a soldier operating a rifle can hold ground then so can a soldier operating a drone.
The part you aren’t noticing is the solider is the one holding ground. If the solider uses a drone to assist him in holding ground, that does not mean the drone is holding ground. The drone is a tool the solider uses. If the drone, ran out of power, failed or destroyed, the solider is still holding the ground.
Otoh if you deployed a drone from a distance and managed to take ground, by eliminating a platoon of enemy soldiers, your drone could hold ground for a short while, until it runs out of power. If your troops can’t arrive to hold the ground your drone captured, your army ceases to hold the ground and the enemy could dispatch another platoon to recapture that piece of ground. You’ll fail to reach your objective to take and hold ground, which is the main way wars are won.
As we speak on this, the Russians hold large swaths of Ukrainian ground, which the Ukrainians have no possibility to recapture by force. And the longer the Russians hold the ground, the stronger they fortify the position, making recapture significantly harder.
Edro
1 Like
We’re not debating whether we care about the troops……….
Maybe thats what makes us different. I happen to care. Most of us who served do.
—we’re debating whether legacy platforms like the Booker justify their cost and survivability in a drone-saturated battlespace.
The most valuable thing on the battlefield is the troops. So if a tank increases the survivability of the troops, we will buy them tanks. If they need drones we buy them drones. If the troops need both we will buy them both. Either way, no expense is too much if it means we can save the lives of the troops.
The Booker is nothing more than a machine. It has a role on the battlefield which no other machine can do. A drone is not a substitute for a tank, no more than a tank is no substitute for a drone.
Edro
Qutoes attributed to etc
“The best protection for the soldier is to bring the fight to the enemy and destroy him.” (German Army Field Manuals)
Wehrmacht Doctrine
2 Likes
It looks like Guderian was a fan of Nathan Bedford Forrest…
Cheers,
M
2 Likes