[Goose]

I am talking not about expensive military-grade drones but drones you can buy from Amazon.  And yes, nearly all small units of soldiers on both sides have one or more of those now.  There are indeed "thousands."  Some of them have been modified to be able to drop a grenade, but mostly they are used as a cheap way of getting intelligence.  Remember in WWI the use of mirrored tubes that enabled troops to look above trenches without getting their heads blown off?  Now there are drones.  China has sold Russia more than $100 million worth of these cheap "dual use" drones since the war began.  Amazon drones (for comparison) vary from $30 to $1500.  A hundred million buys a lot of them.
https://www.politico.eu/article/china-fi...hai-h-win/

All true. One of Ukraine's big problems is that you can't control or view the video from these drones when you are inside an IFV. The antennas don't work inside a can, and the comms antennas of the IFV don't interface to the controllers. If you are a dismount, it's fine.

Mines are a very old and very familiar weapon.

No doubt.  But from what various analysts have said--all far more knowledgeable than me--the quantity, depth, sophistication, and downright cheapness of mines today gives them a different order of magnitude of influence on the battlefield than in the past.

There is some truth to that. The main difference is that many "modern" mines are plastic and contain no metallic parts. Finding them with a conventional metal detector doesn't work. You need ground penetrating radar instead. The US has some of these, but I doubt Ukraine has much. That said, line charges/mine plows don't care what the mines are made of.  I think the thing that is throwing these analysts is that they just didn't understand that Russia has a virtually infinite supply of mines and the have had six months or more to lay them. What we see in Ukraine is actually very similar to what the US has done in Korea. We are vastly outnumbered so we have mined the heck out of it. None of this is really a surprise. We just haven't faced anybody who had the wherewithal and the time to do this type of minefield defense. Certainly in both WW I and WW II the Germans made extensive and successful use of mines. Their problem was they just didn't have enough of them. Russia has had many years to build many mines.

It might also be the doctrine behind their usage--their use in greater depth, and the mixture of different varieties.  Mines to stop tanks.  And mines to stop de-miners.

All old hat. The Germans used to put bouncing Bettys under/around their anti-tank mines. Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-mine. Like many things in this war, Russia is reverting to what they do well. The Russians do have some rather novel anti-personnel mines that are plastic, liquid explosives, and can be dispersed by artillery. For troops advancing on foot, these can be a real problem because they are hard to see and can be spread in areas where the de-mining has already been done.

Interesting that you mentioned the bocage fighting before the Normandy breakout.  What if this offensive is the equivalent of bocage fighting all the way to the Sea of Azov?  Can there be a breakout when mines can be laid almost as fast as Ukrainian troops seem to move?

The minefields that are causing the Ukrainians grief are not hastily laid by retreating Russians. These are prepared and defended minefields. They are not of unlimited scope. It is possible to get "through" them, and right now Russia isn't out there laying more minefields. Too dangerous. The mines the Russians will sow while retreating will be a problem but nothing like the current situation. The Russians do have at least two significant lines of defense between where Ukraine is now and Melitopol. Hopefully Ukraine will have some momentum and get through the second one faster. The lines of retreat can't be mined real well, so that should help.

[Goose]

I am talking not about expensive military-grade drones but drones you can buy from Amazon.  And yes, nearly all small units of soldiers on both sides have one or more of those now.  There are indeed "thousands."  Some of them have been modified to be able to drop a grenade, but mostly they are used as a cheap way of getting intelligence.  Remember in WWI the use of mirrored tubes that enabled troops to look above trenches without getting their heads blown off?  Now there are drones.  China has sold Russia more than $100 million worth of these cheap "dual use" drones since the war began.  Amazon drones (for comparison) vary from $30 to $1500.  A hundred million buys a lot of them.
https://www.politico.eu/article/china-fi...hai-h-win/

All true. One of Ukraine's big problems is that you can't control or view the video from these drones when you are inside an IFV. The antennas don't work inside a can, and the comms antennas of the IFV don't interface to the controllers. If you are a dismount, it's fine.

Mines are a very old and very familiar weapon.

No doubt.  But from what various analysts have said--all far more knowledgeable than me--the quantity, depth, sophistication, and downright cheapness of mines today gives them a different order of magnitude of influence on the battlefield than in the past.

There is some truth to that. The main difference is that many "modern" mines are plastic and contain no metallic parts. Finding them with a conventional metal detector doesn't work. You need ground penetrating radar instead. The US has some of these, but I doubt Ukraine has much. That said, line charges/mine plows don't care what the mines are made of.  I think the thing that is throwing these analysts is that they just didn't understand that Russia has a virtually infinite supply of mines and the have had six months or more to lay them. What we see in Ukraine is actually very similar to what the US has done in Korea. We are vastly outnumbered so we have mined the heck out of it. None of this is really a surprise. We just haven't faced anybody who had the wherewithal and the time to do this type of minefield defense. Certainly in both WW I and WW II the Germans made extensive and successful use of mines. Their problem was they just didn't have enough of them. Russia has had many years to build many mines.

It might also be the doctrine behind their usage--their use in greater depth, and the mixture of different varieties.  Mines to stop tanks.  And mines to stop de-miners.

All old hat. The Germans used to put bouncing Bettys under/around their anti-tank mines. Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-mine. Like many things in this war, Russia is reverting to what they do well. The Russians do have some rather novel anti-personnel mines that are plastic, liquid explosives, and can be dispersed by artillery. For troops advancing on foot, these can be a real problem because they are hard to see and can be spread in areas where the de-mining has already been done.

Interesting that you mentioned the bocage fighting before the Normandy breakout.  What if this offensive is the equivalent of bocage fighting all the way to the Sea of Azov?  Can there be a breakout when mines can be laid almost as fast as Ukrainian troops seem to move?

The minefields that are causing the Ukrainians grief are not hastily laid by retreating Russians. These are prepared and defended minefields. They are not of unlimited scope. It is possible to get "through" them, and right now Russia isn't out there laying more minefields. Too dangerous. The mines the Russians will sow while retreating will be a problem but nothing like the current situation. The Russians do have at least two significant lines of defense between where Ukraine is now and Melitopol. Hopefully Ukraine will have some momentum and get through the second one faster. The lines of retreat can't be mined real well, so that should help.