Also, the soldiers have probably spent months in trenches, and 99.99% of the time there isn't a drone to spot. After a while they just won't even look for one.

The effectiveness is huge. Just consider the k/d ratio.

And also the money spent per kill.

If you're in any way accustomed to military expenditures, the cost of these drone kills is negligible.

[–] IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While the drones are indeed cheap as dirt compared to other military toys they have around it still wonders me about the scale and economics of the things. A guy with a sniper rifle costs roughly the same than a guy with a drone, difference being that a bullet from a rifle is far more cheaper than a dropped grenade, but you need a very skilled sniper to shoot into a trench potentially couple of km's away from the launch spot, so I suppose it's worth the "extra" effort in the end, but the scale of things just somehow seems wrong on my head as it's a relatively expensive and slow thing to take one guy at the time down.

Whatever the case might be, every successful drop from a drone is one (or more) less barrel pointed at the ukrainians and drones can be bought with just money. Someone (specially skilled) with a rifle isn't as easy nor fast to replace, so I suppose it makes sense to slowly grind attackers with presents from the sky.

In any case I salute ukrainians for their effort and once things calm down a bit I'll visit your beautiful country and (for what it's worth) I personally hope that you get peace and join EU and NATO soon.

[–] A2PKXG@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

I guess snipers are the first ones to be picked off by enemy drones(think nicht vision).

I expect the drone pilots to be relatively safe.

I think even In WW1 most days didn't see much action in the trenches. So slow 'progress' with drones is better than no progress. Also, the drones are obviously auxiliary, and not the main strategy