There are a few vids on youtube where shotguns were being used successfully to shoot down drones;
The youtube channel, Task and Purpose has an interesting video on the topic of shotguns for drone defense, it’s worth checking out;
Edro
2 Likes
If I were the unfortunate soul who, while trying to hold ground, lost my life to a drone, that would be true. But as a member of a team, my buddies would take over the job the moment the drone leaves.
Edro
That’s the idea with the Boxer vehicle and its exchangeable modules. I have my doubts about this as there appears to be only one module per chassis, and where this concept has been applied to naval vessels they seem to end up being configured for only one specific mission.
Cheers,
M
Drones are a threat to be reckoned with, regardless of whether we like them or not.
Those who ignore the threat do it at their own peril.
History, and those who come after us, will indeed judge us …
2 Likes
It is a fair chance that it would be a kamikaze drone so it would leave this existence together with you. The next cheap drone would already be inbound.
Think of them as mortar rounds, the next one is already on the way …
1 Like
I now wonder what ‘holding ground’ actually means.
If a territory is actively contested by two or more armed forces such that persistent peaceful activity within the territory is not possible, does anyone hold it?
When two military powers confront one another in a territory and one wins, but the civilian population of the territory then engages in an insurgency supported by one or more external powers, is the ground held? If the winning power uses military force to subjugate the territory but insurgent activity persists, is the ground held?
If a military power successfully uses aerial assets to patrol a territory and prevent enemy infiltration of ground assets, is the ground held?
As an aside, I had another thought related to this discussion.
First off, people are worth a lot of money. Let us say an average person generates 5 million US dollars of economic activity over the course of his or her life. If you make an 18 year old into a soldier and then lose him, you lose 5 million dollars plus all the money spent preparing him to become a productive worker. (If you lose an 18 year old woman it is far worse because you lose her economic potential and the potential of all her offspring.)
This fact means that drones operated from a distance have one very specific advantage over a tank. When a drone dies the operator lives. This preserves all future economic activity of the operator. When a tank dies, crew members probably die. This means the total economic loss of a tank asset is greatly increased.
It gets even better for the drone system. Military effort traditionally requires young, fit men and women. Such people are most needed for military endeavors during the period when they could be generating useful economic activity. However, a drone system does not necessarily require a physically fit person to operate. A country could potentially train older members of society to operate drones. This could free younger members of the society for other purposes, economic or military.
I was thinking of my own situation. I am no longer suitable for most military jobs. I could definitely drive a vehicle but I could also pilot a drone. Old people could potentially make a comeback as a sort of very specialized soldier.
Of course, once drone control algorithms become complex enough they will not need people to operate. It would make an interesting premise for a science fiction story–old soldiers using old, piloted drones in a war against more advanced, algorithm controlled drones. (In Japanese Anime, kids always pilot the most advanced machines. It would be very interesting if the opposite happened in reality.)
3 Likes
Thanks for going philosophical on us
This is, in my opinion, one of the central issues here …
1 Like
As regards the ‘mission module’ concept, has it worked well anywhere? I mean, do Boxer users ever swap out modules? As noted, it hasn’t worked on ships at all. I’m fine with the upgrade module thing to keep older vehicles up to date, but I think I oppose the mission modules as just more expense and maintenance for something never used successfully.
2 Likes
Some concepts look clever on paper but are too much hassle in real life.
Designing a chassis with drivers position which can receive several
different “bodies” isn’t too complicated.
Truck and bus manufacturers have been doing it for decades,
car manufacturers are also working with “platforms”.
The old M113 was build with different “mission modules” even if
the were not swappable. Once built they were what they were
until they got returned to factory and rebuilt.
Having one chassis and a hangar full of mission modules doesn’t
make sense.
2 Likes
I’ve watched them. ALL. I watch T&P often.
How many troops will it take to defeat the thousands of drones fired daily into Ukraine? What is their primary purpose? ADA, or Infantry? Is the shotgun the tool of last resort? How effective are they? These are all questions that need to focus on systems and layers of SHORAD, not a single solution. No army can man, train, and equipment regiments of shotgun-carrying ADA specialists. A broader solution is evolving.
Robin-
I think you mistake my opposition to your viewpoint as reflecting some ignorance of drones’ impact on the modern battlefield. I’ll repeat: drones are not new, and and have and will impact battlespace from before the conflict in Ukraine and well into the foreseeable future.
What I find unsatisfactory is the notion that drones will replace soldiers in combat, even those that might be remotely operated. In the present sense, integration of hundreds of thousands of drones into a national army is beyond the scope and capability of current systems. Drones will support, but not replace, AFVs and troops in contact. They will take on a larger role in ISR, and even maneuver warfare. But they will need a whole of lot of AI and judgment (or humans in the loop) in order to be effective. And the minute a nation starts using drones exclusively for warfare (in some future conflict), then humanity is likely at great risk.
It is almost essential that war be a human endeavor. Technology has always changed warfare, and will remain (as I studied in a class called Technology, Society, and War) a dominant influence on the conduct of warfare. But warfare will remain governed by the other two legs: what society will tolerate, and what warfare inflicts.
I am reminded of the quote: "Didn’t say I couldn’t use it. I said I didn’t like it.” (Quigley Down Under)
1 Like
^ Building consensus. I think we can all agree Hank is holding ground—regardless of how it’s defined.
Ditto. If there’s an opening in the U.S. Homeland’s Der Oldenfolks Sturm Battalion for meme-bombers, I may volunteer.
Anyway, I should get back to staring at those goats. Orders are orders.
2 Likes
You are the GOAT!
2 Likes
Hank and his boys are coming back! And to keep this “on topic,” 
Alamo will now be delivered via drone.
2 Likes
This is what I mean when I talk modularity is like the M113. You have a chassis that you can build on for years. You can just add the latest tech on to the chassis and you still have a supply system in place to maintain the automotive part of the system. I think the Bradley chassis will be around another 25 years at least. I agree that modularity as the Navy thought to use it or how the gun community thinks of modularity is not so practical. I think another determinate is how well you can defend a piece of military equipment. If you can reliably prevent it’s destruction, then you can afford to have expensive equipment. If you can’t defend it then the equipment needs to be cheap and easily replaceable.
2 Likes
Totally agree.
Drones will not by themselves replace any of the existing weapons (including) soldiers on the battlefield. The machine gun didn’t, the mortars didn’t, aircraft didn’t, artillery and tanks didn’t.
What I have been arguing is that all the other systems, including the Booker or anything that replaces it, will need to adapt to the new threat. In WW I the opposing armies adapted to the
threat posed by the machine gun (digging in, trench warfare). Then they had to dig deeper to
protect themselves against artillery.
What is that motto again: Adapt and Overcome?
Different types of drones. A thousand FPV-type kamikaze drones are as “easily” integrated as
a thousand mortar bombs. The flight time is longer but the accuracy, even against moving targets is a lot better. Fire one drone or 5 - 10 mortar rounds.
The larger drones will be less numerous (cost and complexity). One large drone will be operated by a fire control team (flying binoculars with range finder target designators), complements the fire control teams riding in Bradleys or the old M981. Fire control hands off targets to the remote controlled and maneuverable mortar rounds. Fire control evaluates the result and calls for further strikes if needed.
There will never be hundreds of thousands of large drones in any army for the same reason that there isn’t tens of thousands of M981’s or the Bradley version. There are maybe hundreds of thousands or mortar rounds in many armies.
Ukraine will have used up millions of artilelry shells before this mess is over.
I think part of the confusion comes from thinking that a drone is a drone is a drone,
just as confusing as comparing a .22 cal pistol with an M1911 gun with an M109 gun.
They are all drones in the same way as they are all guns.
Nearly all soldiers carry a rifle, fewer carry a handgun, very few fire off M109’s.
Hand grenades are bombs, the MOAB is also a bomb. Hand grenades are easy to integrate
and use, most soldiers manage. The MOAB requires a very different level of organisation
to use.
The small kamikaze drones would be assets somewhere on the same level as heavy
machine guns (squad, platoon or higher?). The larger drones would be FISTV-type assets.
Major problems could arise if some politician wants to buy and use all drones as one single
type. That would be doomed to fail.
Very true! I like that scene 
There was a civilian drone hysteria in Sweden some years ago. The unwashed masses had seen
or heard about the large UAV’s (drones) used by the US to take out high value terrorist targets (good job by the way, ) then they combined this with images from the Terminator movies and then they thought that small drones used by civilian contractors were the same as those killer drones. SIGH! Some people are really stupid sometimes.
My colleague just finished a course to become certified/allowed to fly a 2 - 3 pound drone to
inspect large buildings from the outside. It has a decent camera so we can get close and check for cracks and damages.
Radio control enthusiasts have been flying larger model airplanes at higher speeds for decades but nobody have realised that they are also drones, not to mention model helicopters or the crazy big 1:4 scale model aircraft, model aircraft with two jet engines, hits speeds over 200 mph …
2 Likes
I don’t think the push back on drones came from the lethal versions. What cranked everything up was when they put cameras on the drones and now the pervert down the street was going to fly that drone and spy on your bedroom. Probably post it on youtube. I know the camera/spy thing was the only thing that was said from anyone I know that complained about drones.
2 Likes
There was a multitude of argued reasons but the Peeping Tom issue may well have been the root cause
2 Likes
I thought it was the risk of SWMBO using a drone to spy on my stash…
3 Likes
An extract from several years ago:
That fusion will be easier with a generation of soldiers raised on FP shooter games. At the same time, the US currently lacks the capacity (not the same as capability) to manufacture such drones in numbers, and some of their thinking is still on unencumbered maneuver warfare.
The purpose of US TRADOC (now part of Futures Command) is to develop doctrine, devise the training syllabus, and work with the procurement system to merge the new soldier into the multi-domain combat systems. MOST conventional armies are not preparing for this as fast as the Azeris did, not with such deliberation. I think most western powers have been slow to respond.
A soldier supported by an integrated portfolio of weapons systems will hold ground. As the Armenians discovered, a soldier w/o that support and multi-domain capability will (per the title of COL Antal’s book) have “7 Seconds to Die’.
EDIT (excerpt from the book):
“Azerbaijani targeting parameters were, in priority: air defense, electronic warfare, command and control, artillery, tanks, armored vehicles, trucks, and troops.“
If you’re troops are overwhelmed by drones, then (according to this model) you’re already in deep kimche.
2 Likes