[Goose]

The video [Ref 2] depicts the aggressive operation of Ukrainian drones in Kursk. It confirms that very often the vehicles destroyed by drones are previously immobilized either by previous drone attacks, mines, artillery, or simply broken down. As the video notes Ukrainian FPV "racing drone" operators have developed a tactic of initially targeting the tracks/wheels of Russian armored vehicles. The "running gear" of these vehicles is almost always more fragile than the actual "armored" body of the vehicle. This is particularly true of Russian tanks and BMPs. The engine compartment is also an alternative. Damaging the running gear usually immobilizes the vehicle.

 

Ukrainian drone operators can much more easily destroy a target that is not moving, even if more than one attempt is necessary. There is little hurry, as the vehicle isn't capable of withdrawing. The remaining "runners" can be preferentially attacked first. The Russian crew, knowing this, virtually always abandons the immobile vehicle, leading to open hatches. These empty openings make it much easier for drones to destroy the vehicle. For that reason this event is commonly seen in internet videos. This tactic has delivered good results for Ukraine.

 

Fortunately NATO armored vehicles have better protected running gear. This is a result of providing good protection against modern dual warhead ATGMs. Having armor that resists them but running gear that doesn't isn't viable. However, NATO vehicles are marginally less robust in their running gear than their "body". That said, a Leopard 1A5 with a cope cage added survived 12 hits by Russian drones. The Leopard 1 was notoriously under-protected by US standards. It was designed in a period where it was assumed protection from ATGMs was ultimately impossible and therefore not a design goal. It was however much lighter as a result :-). The first Leopard 1s were delivered in 1972. When appropriate composite armor became available, as demonstrated in 1984 with the first Abrams deliveries, it became clear the Leopard 1 needed better protection. The Leopard 2 delivered better protection. The referenced article provides detail on the remediation applied by Ukraine to the engine compartment and rear of the Leopard 1 tank.

---

The article Ukrainian drones describes a similar recent action by Ukraine near Pokrovsk.

The Russians were spotted by a drone with an infrared camera and then “met with warmth,” the 24th Mechanized Brigade reported. “Infantry, artillery and drone crews did everything to make the invaders’ journey unforgettable.” As the sun rose, 14 of the attacking vehicles were destroyed or immobilized. The rest retreated, five of them damaged.

A combined arms defense is clearly the most effective way of turning back a mechanized force. Detecting it early was a key element in lining up the strength to decimate it.

---

The Ukrainian drones article contains quite a bit of raw information that is quite interesting. However the main thesis in this article is a discussion of how much pain and death Ukrainian drones are delivering to the Russian infantry. The thesis statement is

A few weeks after finally capturing the ruins of Chasiv Yar, a town in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk Oblast that was a locus of a yearlong Russian offensive, the Russian survivors are bogged down in and around the town.

This statement is probably true. However, the Russians did capture the town. The article does not suggest they intend to retreat from it. Drones haven't forced Russia to retreat, nor has anything else. In the end, that is what matters. It is also still muddy in Ukraine, there is heavy fighting in Kursk, and ceasefire negotiations are going on. When these elements are sorted out, the Russia offensive in Donbas IMO will continue, unless a ceasefire is indeed put in place.

---

I am including some links on the use of US drones in Ukraine. It hasn't gone well. In some cases, the reasons are a bit obscure. There are also drone evaluations going on that don't make the internet. Hopefully the following will be useful. Wikipedia Switchblade Whatever Happened to Switchblade Army won't buy more 300s Army buys more Switchblades. IMO it is unclear what this all means. It looks a lot like pork to me, but that isn't at all clear.

[Goose]

The video [Ref 2] depicts the aggressive operation of Ukrainian drones in Kursk. It confirms that very often the vehicles destroyed by drones are previously immobilized either by previous drone attacks, mines, artillery, or simply broken down. As the video notes Ukrainian FPV "racing drone" operators have developed a tactic of initially targeting the tracks/wheels of Russian armored vehicles. The "running gear" of these vehicles is almost always more fragile than the actual "armored" body of the vehicle. This is particularly true of Russian tanks and BMPs. The engine compartment is also an alternative. Damaging the running gear usually immobilizes the vehicle.

 

Ukrainian drone operators can much more easily destroy a target that is not moving, even if more than one attempt is necessary. There is little hurry, as the vehicle isn't capable of withdrawing. The remaining "runners" can be preferentially attacked first. The Russian crew, knowing this, virtually always abandons the immobile vehicle, leading to open hatches. These empty openings make it much easier for drones to destroy the vehicle. For that reason this event is commonly seen in internet videos. This tactic has delivered good results for Ukraine.

 

Fortunately NATO armored vehicles have better protected running gear. This is a result of providing good protection against modern dual warhead ATGMs. Having armor that resists them but running gear that doesn't isn't viable. However, NATO vehicles are marginally less robust in their running gear than their "body". That said, a Leopard 1A5 with a cope cage added survived 12 hits by Russian drones. The Leopard 1 was notoriously under-protected by US standards. It was designed in a period where it was assumed protection from ATGMs was ultimately impossible and therefore not a design goal. It was however much lighter as a result :-). The first Leopard 1s were delivered in 1972. When appropriate composite armor became available, as demonstrated in 1984 with the first Abrams deliveries, it became clear the Leopard 1 needed better protection. The Leopard 2 delivered better protection. The referenced article provides detail on the remediation applied by Ukraine to the engine compartment and rear of the Leopard 1 tank.

---

The article Ukrainian drones describes a similar recent action by Ukraine near Pokrovsk.

The Russians were spotted by a drone with an infrared camera and then “met with warmth,” the 24th Mechanized Brigade reported. “Infantry, artillery and drone crews did everything to make the invaders’ journey unforgettable.” As the sun rose, 14 of the attacking vehicles were destroyed or immobilized. The rest retreated, five of them damaged.

A combined arms defense is clearly the most effective way of turning back a mechanized force. Detecting it early was a key element in lining up the strength to decimate it.

---

The Ukrainian drones article contains quite a bit of raw information that is quite interesting. However the main thesis in this article is a discussion of how much pain and death Ukrainian drones are delivering to the Russian infantry. The thesis statement is

A few weeks after finally capturing the ruins of Chasiv Yar, a town in eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk Oblast that was a locus of a yearlong Russian offensive, the Russian survivors are bogged down in and around the town.

This statement is probably true. However, the Russians did capture the town. The article does not suggest they intend to retreat from it. Drones haven't forced Russia to retreat, nor has anything else. In the end, that is what matters. It is also still muddy in Ukraine, there is heavy fighting in Kursk, and ceasefire negotiations are going on. When these elements are sorted out, the Russia offensive in Donbas IMO will continue, unless a ceasefire is indeed put in place.

---

I am including some links on the use of US drones in Ukraine. It hasn't gone well. In some cases, the reasons are a bit obscure. There are also drone evaluations going on that don't make the internet. Hopefully the following will be useful. Wikipedia Switchblade Whatever Happened to Switchblade Army won't buy more 300s Army buys more Switchblades. IMO it is unclear what this all means. It looks a lot like pork to me, but that isn't at all clear.