Aren't most frag drops vs static positions. Some overhead cover to shield and deflect the frag would probably be the easiest thing to do. We've been doing similar since castles were invented.

Daemon is the real deal on this stuff, and the acronyms he's using are easy to find via a Google search, if you don't already know them.

The new one that comes with the MSV kit isn't bad.

For an open hatch, attached a rolled up netting/wire mesh to the edge, that when the hatch is open it can unroll and attach to the armor in front of the hatchway, providing a sloping surface over the open hatchway that any drone dropped grenade would either bounce off or roll off, while still letting air flow in a non immediate combat environment?

That's pretty good.

Russia supposedly biggest boogie-threat to US forces was their "superior" electronic warfare capabilities.  Their inability to protect their troops from toys purchased on Amazon proves how ill equipped they are in that spectrum.  I'm curious to see how systems such as the warlock, Duke, and Thor can be modified to protect mounted and dismounted troops from drone threats.

The Ukrainians are losing 10,000 drones a month to Russian EW. Twitter videos are very selective.

Most nation state drones are hardened against EW countermeasures.

Warlock and thor don't exist anymore in that same state, and a system like thor will only affect a drone already on the ground.

Some of that static must be latency in the image processor and transmitter. Signal that just wasn’t processed and sent before the boom.

Would it be correct to assume that only irregular or ill-equipped forces are utilizing small hobby drones to drop ordinance normally fired from a ground based platform, or is this a concept that is being adopted by everyone?

If you are driving a tank or armored vehicle with hatches, stick an umbrella above the hatch any time its open.

The  COTS drone concept is primarily used in that manner, yes.

Most other countries are buying or building purpose built systems.  Ukraine and Russia are doing both.

While it is true that many credible sources report that Ukraine has lost many thousands of drones, the sources are a bit scant about exactly how the drones were lost.  IOW, possibly many causes for drone loss.  Presumably the Russians have similar drone loss rates, but that is far from certain.

Given the relatively cheap cost of drones, compared to other far more costly military assets, equipment, and personnel, both sides seem to be trying to use sheer numbers of drones to overwhelm opposing side's countermeasures.  A typically "Russian" mind set, but not without utility.

This is military electronics back and forth "race" akin to the incredibly rapid improvement of aviation during WW I, and the race between the U-boats and Allied countermeasures during WW II.  Back then, the balance shifted from one side to the other rapidly, until a technological "shelf" was reached, and the losing side, well, lost.

What needs to happen now is to make the drones with some sort of AI capability so that they cannot be "jammed" and proceed independently on their missions.

First it will be simple reconnaissance, then the technology will be improved to allow independent "attack" capabilities.

Blind man can see this coming.

We're well past all that as a capability.

As I have explained many times, "drones" are not an all encompassing discussion. At this point it's like talking about the capabilities of "cars" and trying to apply those metrics across all cars.

Some drones can be jammed, some cannot. Some have semi-autonomous sensors, some do not.

The automated ISR or "simple reconnaissance" has been around since the 1980's.  Geofenced AI sensor based attack platforms have been used for several years now.

Problem with drones or any electronics is that they depend on semiconductors and other parts primarily manufactured in Asia.  

If production of those components, say Taiwan Semiconductor Company (TSC) production of semiconductors (they manufacture about 80% of world's semiconductors), is halted or hindered in any fashion those little high tech pieces of equipment will be difficult to deploy in any sustainable fashion due to natural battlefield attrition rates.  

U.S. production of such vital components is pathetically limited at present and even with the CHIPS Act there doesn't seem to be any future where we could sustain the production of parts vital to offset our loses.  

At the end of the video he tests it vs IIIA soft armor, which is able to stop the fragments.

I think it was a RUSI report that said drones had something like a 60% loss rate PER MISSION!
I assume the little commercial drones suffer from EW kills and the larger ones probably take SAM hits regularly.

Still, even if you lose 10-15 $1k drones per $2mil tank killed, that would be more than worth it.

This is why Abrams and many German vehicles have hatches that lift to the “open protected” position.

The biggest take away is the shift to defensive positions, if fixed, must be thought of as needing a bubble of protection vs just addressing a ground level threat.  No longer is digging a hole a viable protective measure.  DFP type structures must have overhead cover and it must disrupt the round because completely stopping it is not feasible in an environment like this. Build a roof that sets off the frag device before it is head level with you.  Of course that just means the frag will then get a fuze delay like we dial in on larger bombs and artillery.  Right now, it looks like much of what is being used is bomblets from cluster bombs such as the Mk20.

I think a lot of this trench-oriented, static warfare stuff has been done before.  Siege of Petersburg (1864-65) comes to mind, which ought to have informed folks during WW1.

It hasn't been for a 100+ years.

18" min overhead cover for fighting positions has been a thing forever.

The primary issue in UA/RU war is that neither side has the preponderance of "effort' to make a decisive outcome, at least at this time.

UA is relying on limited internal manpower resources, and western military/economic aid; UA's economy has been badly damaged.  RU is relying on ostensibly greater amount of legacy mil equipment, (much of which is unsat) and greater manpower resources, much of which is poorly trained, poorly equipped, and which has questionable lower-level leadership, to say the least; RU economy is still functioning, albeit damaged by western sanctions.

Going purely by the "numbers" UA is screwed.  So were the US Colonies during AmRevWar.

It seems that RU forces have reverted to using "blocking" units which will prevent retreat/failure to advance of RU units by shooting them in the back.
A longstanding Soviet practice, and nothing new.  Hardly a "Morale Improvement" measure.

What I think is that UA does not pose a threat to US, and RU does.  Anything that diminishes RU equipment and manpower serves US interests.

I also hope is that US (and NATO countries) "Learn Lessons" from ongoing conflict and replace/augment weapons stocks with improved weapons.  

Territorial Defense ("TD") in Ukraine are what I would call "Militia forces."  

They are being utilized during this current offensive to hold villages after they are seized by Ukraine's regular military ("Regulars").   After the Regulars push the Russians out they fall back, regroup, refit, and redeploy while the TD are then being caught in defensive battles with counter attacking Russians.  This is brutal MOUT fighting and not one of them is wearing a chest rig or doing recon work. They are digging in and slugging it out with Russian IFVs, Tanks, and Artillery.  

So, I think it's ironic while these civilian militia in Ukraine are fighting in fierce MOUT arenas that civilians back in the USA are currently fixated on RECCE set-ups.  

The biggest lesson to me is that Ukraine had since 2014 to develop its senior military leadership and failed to do so.    

We all knew this, but I think it has taken the conflict in Ukraine to really drive this home, conventional conflicts are going to result in rapid loses in equipment and men.  

Our government is sort of set-up for a best case scenario at all times.  We budget just enough to maybe carry out the initial six months of a conflict, but we're going to be in deep trouble if we come up against an enemy that can carry on longer than six months.   Our military industrial complex is not set-up to rapidly produce the high tech equipment that we need domestically to sustain a conflict.  If we get into a fight with China or Russia we will need a lightening war that will deliver us our enemy's unconditional surrender in short order or we're going to be in deep #@$%.   This is why senior leadership at the strategic and policy levels must be competent and we do not have competent people at those levels.  We have leadership that is very competent at the operational level and down to the tactical level.  We are lacking the competence in the strategic and policy levels, because our leaders refuse to acknowledge strategic mistakes committed during the GWOT and this lack of accountability prevents the more strategically inclined to shine and the less strategically inclined to be sidelined.  

In WW2 a lot of general and flag officers were #$%* canned.  I'm sorry, but it's time to hold general and flag officer to the same standard of accountability as they insist the lower ranks are held to.   This will require a culture shfit and the USA is not making it.  Just as Ukraine has not at its upper level truly shifted its military culture from a Warsaw Pact one to a NATO one. Senior leadership makes a big difference.  When Rome gave Caesar his legions he conquered and achieved victory after victory, but when you give a legion to someone like Publius Quinctilius Varus he walks them into the Battle of Totenberg Forest.

I concur, for the most part.  IMHO, UA has generally showed itself to be more militarily "nimble" compared to RU forces, but as time goes on the overall differences seem to be reduced.  

UA forces are generally better motivated and equipped, but RU forces have numbers on their side, as well as land mines and entrenchments.  I'm not sure how this will all work out., although I hope the UA forces will prevail.

If it was up to me, I'd tie-down RU forces far away and use UA forces to cut the "land bridge" between the Crimea and associated territory.  Up-stream Dam being blown in the meantime makes such a "push" possible in the Fall, when water levels recede, existing Russian field works being washed away.

But what the hell do I know?  Logistics (i such a scenario) seem to favor UA, and disfavor RU forces.

Russians have never been adept at logistics, although Russians are not stupid.  Perhaps their innate lack of decent roads, and their consequent reliance on rail networks is a problem.  After all, moving supplies from rail heads to the front has always been a problem for the Russians. US and other western Allies shipped hundreds of thousands of decent trucks to USSR, along with thousands of railway locomotives and rail cars.  Not to mention the gasoline and other fuels to run them all.  

Modern Russians seem like early-war Germans; Hoping by a "coup-de-main" that they could win the war very quickly.

Now the Russians are in something like a "Stalingrad" situation, with some of their assets/territory being possibly ripe for re-taking.

Most wars are won by Generals who rose to their place, by their successes, and who replaced pre-existing Generals.  Grant, during US Civil War, is a classic example.  Petraeus is another example.  A General who had a stunningly effective Counter-Insurgency methodology.

I believe we nowadays hold more General/Flag Officers on the roles than ever before, even though number of troops/ships has declined.

"Top-Heavy"?  Yeah, I concur.  

That said, perhaps we are going beyond the Tactical and even the Operational level most folks are considering.  If I take your comments right, I think you will understand my comments.

Of course, over-riding political events can make a huge difference.  Russia can "let-go" of UA, and come back for another bite in the future.  If I was Putin, I think I would be personally worried.

But what do I know?  Nothing.

The US is, overall, a bit more rural than Ukraine. I'm going to guess a lot of those in this forum focusing on recce/long-distance patrolling already have setups optimized for urban settings, gear whores that we are.

A lot of the country though is urban sprawl, villages and small towns sprinkled throughout and those villages and small towns can in their respective areas be important strategic points (railroad junctions and so forth).   If we're talking equipping for a 2A minuteman scenario like the Territorial Defense forces in Ukraine than I certainly hope guys are kitting up with carrier and ballistic helmet.  Remember too that we here at this forum are like the "gear guys" and we're not the norm even in the 2A community.  Despite the constant "gear is cool, but you need training bro" mantra there are a lot of guys that don't have either much gear or training and to me it's a whole system and neither category exists in a vacuum independent from the other entirely.  For example, hard to attend a fieldcraft course if you don't have a bit of gear to take to it.

I think both of you bring useful viewpoints into the discussion.

Last time I went to my local range when "kitted-up" without PC, I got a few snickers concerning my appearance.  For me, it was a "training event" to test some gear.

I did OK when shooting; perhaps that made a difference to some folks who saw my targets.

I don't mind; some folks came over to talk and discuss things.  That's what counts.  Making friends with like-minded friends counts.

Persuading folks with closed minds/opposing minds should never be one's goal.  Instead, try to persuade folks with open minds by being a "good example".

Many of us here in the US are blessed with many options.  Some other folks are not so fortunate.

Suggest taking advantage of "current" blessings while such "blessings" are still available.

I have NO special knowledge, but I reckon Biden Admin is considering restricting all sorts of body armor.

Just a "guess", mind you.  Doing so would be completely in character and might avoid possible 2A pitfalls of such legislation.

Time will tell.

Mobility, signature reduction and lethality at distance.

It shows what people were warning about in the 2012 timeframe, namely that spectrum and EW are becoming maneuver domains in their own right, and one that requires investment and solution creation that is light years ahead of the existing combat generation capability of most nations.

Being an old skool, cold war vet, I wonder what the sustainability of this stuff will be, in an all-out, total war.  It seems to me, that this level of technology is not sustainable in a total or world war, where raw materials are cut off, and even batteries are getting scarce.   Especially in a 4-5G warfare scenario, where the entire infrastructure of a country is under attack.  Would we then settle back into some kind of tech level, that is sustainable in the field, from local resources even.  That is what is going through my head every time I truck through these mil-tech expos and look at all the gee-gaw on display.  

High tech is always touted as being the answer; I'm not so sure.

In every conflict I've ever studied, there are always moves, and counter-moves.  You bet the wrong way, you get your ass waxed, until you pivot to things that work, and then drive on.  It's funny you guys mention peace-time leaders being shit-canned and war-fighters then taking over.  Same as it ever was.  I think you're gonna find this over-dependency on tech is going to be found wanting, at some point.  Either it can't be supported logistically, or it will be defeated by counter-measures.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.  In this application, technology will give someone the edge, for a period of time, but eventually it will be defeated.  

Many have mentioned, overhead cover has been a "thing" for quite awhile now.  Just because someone chose not to implement it, doesn't mean we all have to run out and change our kit now.  The moral of this story is don't get stuck in a trench line, with leaders that don't quite know what they're doing.

BA is BA.  If you need it, wear it.  If not, drive on.  If you push that decision down to the lowest level, instead of being driven by casualty-averse politics, this question essentially solves itself.

You know how if you hunt cougars they look for the worst, most broken up terrain they can find? Infantrymen do the same thing if they want to live. Could be mountains, swamps or cities, you’ll go where vehicles struggle to get to you.

Absolutely. Basic lay-up point priority is find the thickest vegetation you can still fit you and your team in. Only a really switched-on opponent is going to think to look there.

Truth.  Some real Mac-V SOG shit there.

Truly "Switched-on opponent" might be smart enough to look there first.

One must take their chances and stay vigilant.

Understood, and no disrespect.

I've thought for a while now about that nylon netting stuff that's used at baseball fields and such, make a dome of that stuff over the vehicle to deflect drones and drone-dropped ordnance. Big mosquito netting for big pesky stinging bugs.


COTS drones are not using spectrum that military systems traditionally operated in, so EW systems were probably not configured or capable of disrupting them. Also much lower power so harder to detect.

From open sources I have read, Russians are pretty adept at EW.

Likely issue from ongoing UA/RU conflict is how rapidly EW issues are rapidly changing.  US/Eur might find that altering existing weapons might be required in order for some "items" to be "invulnerable" from EW countermeasures.  Obviously a rapidly changing field.

Nothing mechanical works 100% of the time.

COTS drones are actually much easier to disrupt with EW and both sides have been getting absolutely crushed with it. With that said EW is not a magic 360 degree 900 mile long force field.  Ukraine is still losing 10,000 drones a month.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2023/05/22/ukraine-drones-losses-are-10000-per-month/?sh=7bebf3e4384a

Also understand that you only see the videos people want you to see.  Drone footage going dark in the middle of the field isn't necessarily entertaining or furthering any agendas.

As my Bother-in-Law (a USMA graduate) once said, "Better some armor between you and the opponent than a simple field coat".  I understand his statement is kinda simplistic, but I'll take the statement of a person who was awarded a '"Bronze" metal award and a "Purple Heart" in VN as a "reasonable" comment way back when.  Times have changed, and I reckon his opinion might have changed nowadays.  

As in troops need more armor? Or as in armor is too heavy and kills mobility?

Saw this on Twitter the other day

Attached File


An offered solution for 5G tools was to hit them with a rock. Kind of like they're doing in London.

Regarding the gear aspect of the thread, there are battle belts and such that have level 3a built into the belt pad. I could see where adding a few layers of ballistic material to the back of belts, packs, pouches etc may help while minimizing bulk/ weight, additional heat retention, but I suppose that would be hard to quantify.

I personally keep a 3a cumberbund insert tucked into the back of my dangler pouch to cover my belly some.

The drone rate loss is something I'm going to be interested to see in legit reports that come out.

As a prepared civilian you have maybe one drone unless you're some serious drone enthusiast and then we've got civilians now attaching very expensive thermal optics to them, so losing those bad boys would hurt in terms of ISR in a major way.  If the USA ever ends up in a near peer conflict where we're fighting  some invading force here in the homeland there isn't going to be some nonstop flood of foreign made drones coming in to resupply us, we'll be pretty much on our own logistically.   Whereas, Ukraine can get a steady flood of drones and I'm guessing that they do receive huge shipments of drones on the regular.

Drone companies in China must be making a pretty penny off this conflict selling to both sides.

What is most useful is the "West" amping-up arms production, and re-evaluating/redesigning arms in light of UA/RU conflict.

More likely to be tyrannical US forces and cops. I wonder if an FPV drone flying at head height, would be better for civ recon stuff, from a survivabilty/detection perspective?