Lessons learned from armored assaults in Ukraine
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 сер 2023
- Supremacy 1914 for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:
💥 s1914.onelink.me/TX2k/dn3nk752
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!
After a year and a half of war in Ukraine, we have seen both swift victories and large swaths of territory taken and periods of months with virtually no front movement.
In this video we’ll try to dive into the successes and failures of armored assaults throughout the war. What worked and what did not? And what do the results of assaults so far mean for the future? How is the current Ukrainian offensive faring? And will Ukraine try their luck at further armored assaults?
Why haven't we seen WW2-style mass tank offensives in Ukraine?
• Why haven't we seen WW...
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com - Розваги
Supremacy 1914 for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:
💥 s1914.onelink.me/TX2k/dn3nk752
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!
the sexbot spam surely shows that Binkov has made it
Make what if scenarios of the past like Germany vs soviets alone
binkov Ukraine lose bakhmut and they still didn't retake it so don't say they lost it once like they already retaken it.
ua-cam.com/video/uOj0jsMfTw0/v-deo.html
From what I do see Russian tank doctrine fail persistently even today. Russia was capable to cut the losses only thanks to folding back to WW1 doctrine of trench warfare and artillery supremacy. And even that gradually fail them for same reasons why people stop relying on them half century ago. Unfortunately they could dig gard enough that offensive, especially through minefields (covered by artillery and reserves) was slow.
In the end Ukraine lost devastating number of five Leopards 2, while Russia lost only four... thousand T-tanks. Or at least that what Russian TV want us believe, rambling about failure of never stated goals of offensive (eghm... Tokmak).
I think it bears mentioning that all the great tank battles of history were also combined arm operations. The skies were flooded with with ground attack aircraft doing everything from taking out tanks, harassing supply lines or simply keeping the enemy planes occupied. Not to mention the requisite artillery support that always preceded their attacks. So a pure tank assault is very rare and almost always a bad idea.
Tanks really only to get to shine in the same way Calvary did in the past. When the enemy has been routed and they are able to simply chase them down with impunity. This helps prevent your enemy from regrouping on the next hill and magnifies the scope of your break through. Though eventually the enemy either will regroup or you'll run into their rear guard and the process starts all over again.
Not 73 easting
@@mackam440that one is the exception that proves the rule
@@mackam440If I recall correctly, 73 Easting happened during a Sandstorm where air support was extremely limited or unavailable.
73 Easting's mention, reminds me of a certain uber Vatnik who took credit for it.
@@mackam440 73 easting happened after the USAF had spent a month pounding the Iraqi military. If I was in charge of Ukraine military over a year ago, and the U.S. had just given me over 30 billion to buy weapons with, I would have gone for an order of 5000 AT-802U Sky Wardens with delivery to be completed in a years time. Spend the year training the 10,000 men to aircrew them, another 10,000 guys for ground crew, amass the ordinance for the air campaign. Also, find 10,000 landing strips as close to the front lines as safely possible, each with sufficient cover to conceal 1 small prop plane. The Sky Wardens are armed crop dusters that can use any flat piece of grassland of only 400 meters length to takeoff and land. They can fly in mere inches off the ground, over the mine fields, but under the radar beams and electronic jamming. They carry 60% the load of an A10 Warthog, can be assembled from kits trucked into position within 24 hours. Ukraine isn't going to get 5th gen stealth aircraft from the Americans, or even 4th gen except a tiny pittance of F16s that have to fly high. So amass 5000 Sky Wardens less than 20 minutes flight time from the front line and launch them all in a NAP the earth attack at the exact same moment. Each comes with 2 500 lb. bombs, 2 Hellfire missiles, 2 20mm or 50 cal machine guns and 14 70mm rockets in two pods. They would cause total mayhem..
Combined arms warfare has a place for tanks, a few more shots can make a difference but as you said, tactics and doctrine play a key role in utility of armored assets. You can have the best tanks but a mine is still a mine.
@@WiegrafFolles2 words= production costs
@@WiegrafFollesdude if we could make a 70 ton armored vehicle float in the air, that’d be sick, but I think the infantry around the tank would not be having a good time, since the force required to make that 70 tons float would send those fuckers far away from the tank lmao
Precisely!! The Russians have lost more than their entire pre-invasion number of in-service tanks (*3,000* plus) against Ukrainian forces without any combined arms tactics as they couldn’t hope to compete against the Russian Air Force for control of the skies. So, yes, combined arms particularly in offensive ops, is very nice to have, but obviously in real life as proven decisively in Ukraine that it is just that, a “nice to have”. That’s why death yes T-54/55s are making up 70 some percent of Russian armour losses now when a year ago it was only 20 same percent… the Russian fleet of relatively modern MBTs is gone, destroyed, and sanctions are making it impossible to refill the ranks. T54/55s are being sent out into combat zone with nothing but the tankers’ version of iron sights, to be picked away at one by one from distance of a knock, klick and a half while the Russian tanks would need to get well within visual distance of under 100 metres to even have a hope at hitting a Ukrainian tank.
For awhile the Russians have used boards from cell phones in producing new model tanks, but even those have run out. So, again, basically the entire armoured arm of the Russian armed forces have been obliterated from the face of Grandma Earth with no semblance of combined arms in the way we in the West think of it anyways…
Russia is lucky AF that Ukraine didn’t have the forces to contest control of the air and more 155mm ammo got effective counter-battery fire, or as hard as it is to believe Putin’s armour losses (again, the *entire* inventory of in-service tanks, including reserve armoured units not just decimated but completely obliterated!! BOOM, just all gone, and with the terrible ammo storage design mostly with the crews pulverized, literally turned to fine powder when all that ammo cooks off at once).
And also again for emphasis THEY CAN’T MAJE GOOD THOSE LOSSES AS THEY DON’T HAVE THE MATERIEL DUE TO SANCTIONS, which puts them in a sticky wicker indeed, and begs the question what next for Russia when the old tanks in deep storage run out?? Same with logistics, with old trucks that have tires that haven’t been manufactured for over 75 years being taken out of storage that break down before getting anywhere close to front line depots and staging areas.
And this doesn’t even get into casualties, where Russia has had the equivalent of their own Vietnam War as a point of comparison roughly even four months. They are mostly in remote areas, but if they have to start drafting fir front line young men in St. Pete’s and Moscow, when those coffins start streaming home, watch out, especially when the sons of those in power aren’t among the dead that’s the stuff revolutions are made of. True story, and I hope, no, pray, that it ends up with Putin hanging by his evil neck clicking his heels in vain all the way to the Hell he do richly deserves.
Hover tanks will be blown up by mines with sensors.
In the same vein you could have a fresh recruit or a spec ops soldier, but if you have them charge across open terrain at an entrenched position, they'll be shot just the same.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
"Whale meat the beef of the sea"⛳
Without doubt the greatest Shrek quote.
6 years ago General Milley said that in the field of battle if you can be seen you can be targeted.
It's very difficult to concentrate an armored division of 200 tanks, 400+ vehicles & 10,000+ soldiers in an age of 'precision-munitions'.
-Bingo-
With 50,000 plus drones coming those poor souls on the ground will all be insane mained killed or worse 😢
That’s always been that way. Adapt and overcome.
Well, it all doesn't matter if you can't win air superiority. If you have air superiority, then you can do anything you want.
@ Russia does not have air superiority. However Ukraine does not either
The situation in Ukraine is one of the reasons US developed its "Shock & Awe" doctrine: Once you give an opponent a chance to dig in even low grade troops with basic weapons can put up some serious resistance as trenches provide solid protection even against modern conventional armaments. Thus the key to success is to steam roll your opponents from Day One and never give them any opportunity to consolidate a defense to fight back from.
the us didint develop that its called common sense
and still the us didn't win a single war after ww2 ... every country they invaded =enter the country then get wrecked for 10 years then they give up and return home ..shock and awe works when you have full air control and that is something you will never have when you facing an equal enemy
Shock and awe is just modern blitzkrieg.
Ukraine already had defenses since 2014.
let me introduce you to blitzkrieg
Tanks aren’t obsolete. Just have to have a competent military and not just throw them around in isolation
or only against sandal and turban 👳
So the Ukrainians trained to the nato standard aren’t good enough? Maybe the nato standard only works against 3rd world countries without night vision.
Leopard 2 left the chat! 😭😭😭
@@hairypancake4425
I guess if that’s what you consider Russian forces than yes
@@troysweeney8432 I think it is all about uncontested air space for NATO doctrine to work, and unfortunately drones have made that more difficult to achieve. NATO doctrine is lacking behind I'd say. It worked before, and still is more or less effective, just generates more losses at the moment.
Armor does some necessary things on the battlefield even if the attack is more a grinding infantry assault. What people forget is tanks were developed to provide up close and personal gun fire support to attacking infantry in WWI which was used to great effect in 1918 on the Western Front. That need has never disappeared. So something like a tank is still needed even if there are no great armor sweeps for the rest of the war.
naw
Artillery helps a lot more with firepower.
@aperpetualguardsmanwithafl2942 It is impossible to destroy stuff with tanks stuck in a minefield.
@@kazedcatYou can have a tank shoot the building across the street from your troops. You can't have artillery shooting in the same city block as your own troops. Tanks have their place
@@rayzerot Yes you can call artillery to strike what ever is painted with your laser sight. Guided munitions are now a thing.
Luna-25 crashed as a result of trying to evade Russian T-72 turrets.
Omg that's so true
Btw one of those turrets landed in my backyard. Im in Florida
Starlink was down for a whole day after a bunch of leopard and bradley turrets crashed into them in low earth orbit and disrupted the entire network
@kalajari1749 Russians think John Deere tractors are Leopard tanks.
Maybe it was a Leopard 2 turret that crashed into the moon, and not the Luna-25?
Like you said, tanks are good for exploiting breeches. But, you don't use the tip of a spear to break down a wall. So tanks will be effective in the right circumstances. Those circumstances are brought about by artillery and air support. In this case drones are not sufficient.
Low tech drones are not sufficient. We have yet to see Anti radiation suicide drones to disable jamming equipment deployed in Ukraine.
@@kazedcatstill the same. To take down a wall you use a sledgehammer. And that is unfortunately manpower
@@inteallsviktigt To take down a wall you can use bombs.
@@kazedcat and to do that you need to know where it’s going
@@kazedcatIn the scale of the war it means nukes
I wonder how the AFU hasn't hired the comments section yet to advise them. They might have really hit Tokmak in 3 weeks by now had they done that.
Ukraine is obviously in the wrong to refuse the military advice by the Americans. The Americans are very experienced and well funded. Their advice should be heeded
@@John_Smith_86 lmao
@@MauiWowie51 lmao
@@John_Smith_86 The United States have no clue about fighting and equal opponent. All they do is drop million dollar bombs on clay huts. Dont get me wrong, the US Army is still the most powerful single army on this planet but not for their brilliant strategists and fierce fighters but simply for funding. Biggest GDP combined with and enormous percentage of it spend on military.
As a honorary 4 star armchair general I'm ready and awaiting to take up my well paid commission.
Remember the initial successful Egyptian attack across the Suez Canal in October 1973; the armored vanguards were accompanied by a number of Soviet SAM-6 self-propelled missile systems; added to numerous infants with SAM-7 portable anti-aircraft missiles; to the above add cannon anti-aircraft artillery systems, such as the ZSU-23-4 Shilka.
Let's replace the mentioned models, by the modern ones of the 21st century, well coordinated!!! and as in October 1973, with a "curtain" of fixed SAMs in the rear it should work.
Thats the reason why russia is attacking in the rear especially Odessa now, new AA Systems won't reach the Frontline but are needed to cover Cities like Odessa. And thats why my Country (Germany) should modernize their reserve Patriot Systems and deliver them to Ukraine, or even the unmodernized which can only attack Aircrafts and Helicopters. Germany has 12 Pac-2 Patriot Systems. Which are inactive. Those leser Systems modernized or even given with their currenct capacity to protect the Frontlines would make a big difference. Germany won't use them in the future, they are in Emergency Storage.
@@Elkarlo77
Thank you so much
They added SAM-6 self-propelled missile systems to numerous infants ?
@@zacharydurocher4085
No; SAM 7 !
I mean, yeah. Egypt launched a surprise attack, synchronized with a second invasion by Syria, with 3x the soldiers deployed by Israel, and supported by 9 other nations, on the Jewish high holiday. That's why they made initial ground, not their smart use of weapons. Once the IDF rallied, Egypt was pushed back over the canal in a rout, and would have been able to do very little if the IDF decided to visit Cairo (the UN was afraid of this, which is why they intervened). That's not a good showing of armored warfare--that's one of the worst defeats in modern military history. It was literally every condition in their favor and they still got crushed.
Once the IAF gained air superiority, the Russian armor just died. Their use of tanks was horribly inefficient and disorganized, to the point where the USSR was pissed at them. Also, they tended to be extremely reckless in charging defensive positions, taking unnecessary casualties.
The problem of modern warfare is that vehicles, especially tanks and planes, became too complex and expensive. You can't mass produce them anymore, so you can't freely use them. That's also why drones, manpads and atgms are being so widely used: they're cheap, effective and most can be mass produced.
So your solution is attacking with guys in Kevlar vests? Those are both less expensive and less complex.
@@Rob_F8F ur pretty smart rob
We're talking about massive armies (compared to other modern armies) fighting along relatively small fronts in urban battles and along entrenched positions. What drones have really done more than anything is make traditional systems like artillery that much more accurate. All of that runs against successful armored pushes. Ukraine has switched back over to small stormtrooper-like assault squads to clear out Russian fighting positions one at a time. That has been more successful and less costly, however the difference is that its much slower than an armored push.
@@Rob_F8F Actually those are quite expensive as it takes 18 years of labor, food, and various types of social and financial investment to be usable. Drones are much less expensive than that. Also, men are much less obvious targets and can hide much better in most environments.
Not really, a modern vehicle has the ability to project power easily 20 times more efficiently than older vehicles. You need less to efficiently cover a front now. Having more mass often just leads to more causalities.
Combined arms means tanks needs air cover and support. Tanks alone are vulnerable.
What have we learned from Ukraine…..
Artillery is still king of the battlefield 😉
Nope this isn't 1916 if Ukraine had NATO air support this would be over by now. You can't comprehend just how much destruction air power has.
Haha:
If that battle field is between two countries with terrible airforces...
Sure
And another: dont go to war against Russia.
@@henryrollins9177 I think you mean “Russia’s military is a joke against any NATO country” and “Russia shouldn’t have attempted to conquer their neighbor”
@@brotherjongrey9375
I mean they're not great but I'm curious if you're comparing them to US air power. If so, we've got the number 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th largest and most advanced air forces in the world.
I wouldn't be surprised if any war that doesn't involve the states has air operations that are similar to the Russian-Ukraine war.
"it had essentially lost bakhmut at one point before starting to push back" ?
They have lost bakhmut, and they're not close to taking it back. There's been no major fighting there for months
Bakhmut is just a big waste it was all Russian Propaganda to show that they captured something also the PMC Wagner captured Bakhmut not the Russian army😂
@@MitsukiHashiba ok, sure, that's all true, but they still have lost the city and likely won't be taking it back any time soon
This channel is very pro-west.
@@MitsukiHashiba thats why the clown was crying over it.
Russia currently controls the Eastern side of Bakhmut, which is the downtown area, Ukraine controls the western side, which is the more suburban/rural part of the city.
Great presentation thanks keep them coming!
Breakthroughs are made by infantry, armored vehicles are good rolling in disorganized defense, just like it's ancestor.... the cavalry. Rushing towards a solid line is suicidal.
Exactly. Tons of pararels can be drawn there
Wrong, infantry are best for holding ground, tanks are best for taking ground. We've learned that from WWI onwards.
@@matthewnewell4517So why marvelous western tanks cant take nothing more than a few kms and flatened villages?
@@matthewnewell4517 i mean.... why are you even here? This whole conflict proven you wrong.
@@henryrollins9177They did more than Russia in 6 months tbh
Open and flat fields are better for offensives against an unprepared enemy but with both sides so built up now, open field offensives are much more difficult than offensives through forests or hedgerows or even urban areas. Both sides now basically have islands of fortified areas with an ocean of open areas that both sides watch with artillery waiting for the other to try something.
ww1
Tanks are highly vulnerable AND highly valuable in urban conflict. Tanks are some of the best assets to attack or counter attack and can be serviceable in defense but this increases the chance for drones or artillery to cause casualties (needs lots of camo and probably need to move regularly). When tanks are upgraded to a competent hard kill system, then they will gain a certain level of immunity to ATGMs and will gain a great deal of effectiveness again (even if explosively formed projectiles or other advances can bypass the new defense).
Pretty much I think the implementation of a good hard kill system will put significant stress on infantry and other logistics and effectively reduce an infantry AT team to being able to get maybe a couple kills instead of each shot being a possible kill. It increases the effort and materials needed for a successful engagement and pushes killing a tank away from infantry and more to vehicles that can both carry and fire multiple AT weapon systems in quick succession or at the same time to overwhelm hard kill (or carry the newer, and most likely heavier, weapon systems which can bypass hard kill).
There is no hard kill system. A mine is still a mine and will take out tanks just the same. The same with artillery they will still kill tanks no matter how hardened it is.
@@kazedcat I think he mean the Anti-tank weapons not mines, and yes There is hard Kill system, the most well known and battle hardened is Trophy APS on Israel Merkava's tank.
@@Boomkokogamez What is stopping Ukrainian tanks are the mines and artillery. There is no hard kill for mines and artillery.
@@kazedcat He wasn't talking about mines and artillery, he said Infantry AT team.
Problem is mobility kills, if the tracks are gone, the tank will soon follow.
the segue into the ad was flawless. well done
I think you definitely want some tanks in the mix to require the enemy to expend a lot of effort to be prepared to deal with them.
Also think tanks would do better on battlefields without millions of mines. Tanks could have done well in the early war if Russia had supported them correctly, but they'll have a hard time now in this WWI phase.
Russia can just open another front.
Would have helped if they started before the snow melted and your armor is restricted to highways ripe for atgm ambush with your vulnerable sides exposed and kill boxed for artillery and drones .
It's not even just the mines. It's the combination of mines slowing tanks down, ever-present drones making your positions known, and artillery shooting at your armored vehicles *while* they're stuck in mine fields and spotted by drones.
This is why doing an assault like this without air supremacy is so difficult. If this was the US they would have an extended bombing campaign destroy every artillery pieces in sight before they even *attempted* to cross the minefields. Then they could do so in relative safety with specialized mine-clearing equipment. That obviously isn't possible for Ukraine and it makes a massive difference.
russia pulled punches thinking to simply enforce regime change, they even fell back when negotiations started which got canceled after the British pm had a talk with zelenski. they just didnt planned for this as they reacted on the request of the ukranian republics as ukraine started a front activation breaking cease fire and heavy weapon agreements on feb 17. their initial blundering the conscripts the straight true unsupported by flanks offensive in the beginning is all due to this
If they could they would. They can't. @@eliasziad7864
Brilliant as always!
Tanks are not obsolete. They need to be synergized with other support
US doctrine would be to use a lot of apache helicopters and other assets to cover a breaching assault, if 50% of the attack helicopters were destroyed the US army would consider that acceptable to breach a kilometers deep minefield, and they need a lot more breaching vehicles
Also, obsolete tanks like the T-72, T-64, and T-55 being obsolete doesn’t prove that tanks as a concept are obsolete.
Maybe running headfirst into a huge minefield with massive fortifications isn't the best option for war.
If Ukraine was the US. They would've gone around the minefields through Russia. Or use our navy.
Yet more importantly we would use our massive airforce to destroy artillery in the vicinity. We would create a corridor, and support them. Possibly even dropping airborne units, and using Marines somewhere else.
Nah our Navy and Marines would be attacking Russia from Siberia! Wouldn't help directly - just draw resources away.
@@override36750% losses just to get to the enemy? Not a chance. That would be unacceptable to the United States Army.
Simply and well put sir.
"How can a man go forward with the cavalry without infantry support?" - Napoleon
What horses? The ones they ate during the winter to prevent starvation?
@@dpt6849 Tanks are heavy cavalry dingus.
@@wenerjy didn't know Napoleon had those.
He couldn't even win from the Russians even when he did had tanks?
I think I am starting to understand why so many people make fun of the French military and their L'ses.
🤭
@@dpt6849 Woosh. You might be missing a few brain cells there.
I love how Blinkov has completely omitted the Russian use of loitering munitions.
Or how ukraine hasnt even reached 1st line of defence in 3 months
Or how Ukrainian men (18-60 yo) can't leave Ukraine, so they can bring their sacrifice for Zelenskyi and his masters in Washington.
@@oliveryt7168 Ruzzian men are free to travel until mobnik email comes?? 😂🤣
Well I wouldn't be in a tank or an aircraft in the event of war. They have had 70 years to figure out how to kill them and they are the main targets on the battlefield. So if you are forced to fight another war and someone come up to you and says "would you like to be in a tank or a pilot, just say NO!"
Good video, thank you for your work.
Thank you for doing research videos, they are appreciated more than you know.
But poor analysis. It was not objective analysis. He was telling lies.
So wait, are you telling me that there is no one king of the battlefield and that multiple units with different equipment have to cooperate? *Shocked Pikachu face!*
Love your channel!
For operating a leopard efficiently you need to have 3 years of preparation, for using a t-72 you just need to know how to drive a truck
Also, Russian lancet drones have been very effective aswell
He failed to talk about that
@@jamaltimmerman9298 Indeed, pretty obvious which side he root for... the side of the algorithm.
True, almost every day there is some footage of Russian lancent drones destroying armored vehicles or artillery
The bigger problem of the btc was the fact that they were understrength. With some units having only 1/3 of the required manpower within the unit.
Well they were only supposed to do impressive parade in Kyiv 🤷🏻♂️
I'm starting to think as well that Putin either wanted to intimidate Ukraine to sign a treaty or really though that "one kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will fall apart"
@@Perrirodan1 Win easy, capture capital, put president Zelenkyy on trial, put in puppet government.
No ride, need ammo. Meanwhile civilians were making molotov cocktails and throwing them on tanks from their damn cars.
Putin fucked around with the wrong country. (Thankfully for Ukraine, we did care unlike with Georgia and Chechia and all the others)
The number of misfacts and wrong statements in video is so high, it reaches the outer space beyond the atmosphere.
rare not biased channel, good work
I think you forgot to mention that Russia resistance to Ukrainian armoured vehicles is the use of lancet and fpv kamakazi drones
they used the drones to disable or damaged the tanks and then it is the job of artillery to destroy them
And for the helis, Russia did quite lost a dozen of those combat helicopter in the first phase of the war but they have adapted the strategy by sending 3 different types of helis that is an mi 24 which can carry both transport and attack, mi 8 which is only for transport, and a ka 52 for attack
And for Ukraine big comeback is because they had used guerilla tactics to thwart off the Russian, now that they have western equipment, they chose to do head on tactics with the russians
Also one of the biggest mistake that Ukraine is that they allowed Russia to built up fortifications in which the Russians already knew that they will be facing off western equipment that Ukraine had been waiting and they had already prepared for that
From my perspective Ukraine need electronic warfare system and more air defences and leave the jets for later (because it is for something that you have to wait just like the tanks)
if im wrong in some place please share your thoughts
One of the smarter comments here. The issue for Ukraine and the West is that due to just in time business practices and the de- industrialization of our economies, we don't have the capacity to produce the needed systems in the necessary quantities. Ukrainians capabilities will eventually degrade to understandable levels despite the remarkable fighting spirit they display. Peace talks should have been allowed to continue in 2022, or reinstated after the success at Kharkov. As time goes on the terms of an eventual peace will be worse and worse for them. But, as long as Biden can get to the next election cycle without an Ukrainian defeat, he will consider it a win.
@@catocall7323 its more our lethergy and being scared by putins threats. but if ukraines allies commited, we could simply out produce russia. the economic power is much greater.
We are expanding our military industry output in the USA. Artillery shell factories are going 24/7. Don't know about the rest of nato though.
@@catocall7323Peace talks have been allowed the entire time. The problem is Russia won't leave Ukrainian sovereign territory. Peace is the easiest way to get peace
Well in all honesty Russian electronic warfare has gotten the better of US Himars and Jdams as reported even by Western Media a few months back when they were heiled as Game changers and I don't think even the US has the capability to beat that otherwise they would have already send it with the Himars when they started failing . And Ukraine needs more air defences as you said but issue arises that a 1000 km front cannot be defended with air defences as even the US would have to strip it's own territory to send that many air defences..Ukraine needs to atleast have a airforce which if not capable of defeating the Russian airforce, atleast deny air superiority but Ukraine is unable to do that and I don't think even the F-16s will be able to do that as obviously they won't have enough numbers to fight of the 900 strong Russian fighter-bomber fleet and not to say the F-16 is no match for the Su- 57,35,34,30 or the Mig -35.
Ukraine needs to be capable of atleast denying Russia air dominance without it ,they are just sending Ukrainian infantry to their deaths
Robotyne held longer than Mariupol. I don’t think it’s indicative of a major breakthrough. Just more attritional combat
Robot in was cut off from supplies, one they ran out it crashed. So no, it didn't last longer.
@@mathish1477 it wasn't cut off from supplies. Or you're referring to the fact that it was in range of Ukranian artillery and drones? Same can be said about anything on the frontline. Does it mean that Ukrainian forces in Robotne are also cut off from supplies, since Russia also targets their reinforcements daily?
@@yellowtunes2756Ukraine is getting more supplies to the front then Russia is.
@@TheMrPeteChannel sure sure just ukraine, that's why when russia did something unexpected people can't accept because they're just favouring ukraine only and can't be objective
@@TheMrPeteChannel how did you measure it it?
Excelent video, tnks
Thank you Mr. Binky.
The tank is not obsolete. The need for armor will always be needed on the battlefield. As with any weapon, training and strategy is the difference between victory and defeat.
I volunteer you to be the tankman in modern combat then. I'll stay with infantry
Its about completing the combined arms set. Artillery & mines stop tanks, dug in Infantry is protected from Artillery, fixed fortifications are vulnerable to air strikes. If you have the air power to rotate to, push the breach with tanks followed by mech infantry you go forward. Victory is not due to any one weapon, but having enough of what the circumstance demands.
Nukes are *one weopen* .
but you need a successful plan when you dont have all of those things. you cant always choose in what condition you go to war....
Excellent video!
Training is the most important weapon
Western warmachines are more potent on the battlefield compared to eastern machines however both will fail if hit by mines, anti tank missiles or artillery. The real difference is crew survivability and the extend of damage they take when hit. Leopards shown great survival chances for the crew and most of them can be fixed up in short time. Same can be said about Stryker, Bradley and Marder even Armored Cars. The T series of tanks, the BMP family and the BTR family are taken out for good including crew when hit most of the times.
Except when they flee their burned tanks and have to cross that minefield on foot and blow up again. Tanks for the memories.
@@dansmith1661 Most mine fields in Ukraine are anti tank and a person is not heavy enough to trigger a anti tank mine. Russians in true terrorist fashion do widely scatter butterfly mines all across the frontline and beyond however for innocent people to loose limbs many years after Russia has lost this war.
@@lobster8009 yes,but also everyone in this war is not compassionate for civilians ,Ukraine using HIMARS missiles and others against urban areas so civ casualties are common 😢..USA used cluster bombs which have similar effects in all there wars
@@nenad632 The difference is Ukraine and to some extend the US use precision guided ammunitions at military targets hiding in urban areas. The RF just straight up terrorise Ukrainian civillians.
@@nenad632HIMARS is significantly different to widely spread cluster mines like those delivered by the remote mine laying rockets of Russia. Precision weapons were developed to enhance... precision; ensuring a successful target kill is more likely and reducing the risk of civilian casualties. It's the same reason Ukraine had to promise not to use 155mm cluster shells in urban areas.
The Russian cluster shells (with a sub-munition failure rate of 40%-60%) and the vast minefields covering the frontline are a significantly greater issue for civilians, as they are not only indiscriminate but will pose a threat for decades or centuries to come unless they are found a disarmed / destroyed. Ukraine also had some of these shells but not enough to practice the same tactics associated with widespread use. The US supplied 155mm shells' submunitions have a failure rate of 1%-2%, and their remotely layed mines disarm themselves after a set period of time, to reduce the risk to civilians and future generations.
not obsolete, but extremely vulnerable to drones, mines, IED, and modern ATGM. They absolutely cannot be used by themselves, and need to be covered by everything possible to try and keep their main gun firing.
exactly, battleships are not obsolete if you have screens of destroyers, cruisers and a couple of aircraft carriers plus couple hundreds of aircrafts.
RIGHT?!!
@@ylstorage7085 no, battleships are completely obsolete. Tanks are one more upgrade in technology away from joining them.
@@sodog44 I was being sacarstic....
reminder that Battleships didn't become obsolete over night
It's amazing how technology has massively swung the advantage back towards the defense
It's funny seeing some of the "experts" discussing war in the comments. I wish some of them would get to know how it feels like just to be on the battlefield and then have them discuss war... I guarantee they won't be as cocky as they are now.
Would be interesting to see some tank alternatives developed as a result of these problems:
When push comes to shove, the fundamental role of tanks does not seem to have changed that much- not tank on tank warfare, most tank losses are artillery, mines, atgms and whatnot
rather, it would be to draw in machinegun fire away from the infantry, random mayhem from the IFVs that have to protet the infantry from shrapnel and full-auto small arms
And that whole entourage is vulnerable to mines and artillery because its hard to hide- so wherever those two are a factor, progress seems to be made only by small infantry teams slowly making their way through woods or other covered positions.
Makes one long for an exoskelet (seriously) or some other way to get a single person IFV-like resistance to small arms. Make it a single person affair, ideally bipedal, and suddenly the same capability is way less obvious, easier to hide, easier to transport and do surprise attacks with...
and easier to protect, capable of making use of cover and human-size dugouts.
Just shower thoughts
Couple that exo skeleton with high speed and a potent weapon system. Oh my, how things would change.
Tanks can be somewhat useful today in combined arms warfare but really they have secondary role. Primary firepower on the ground is and will be artillery. There are many threats for a tank nowadays (mostly minefields, ATGMs, airpower, artillery) and all of that along with terrain simply limits tank's potential.
Tanks will still be relevant and they have room to adopt tech to protect themselves. APS can be tuned to defeat drones. More cage armor and other unique passive armors like the pzh2000’s plastic spike armor, better ecm and passive defenses. Lasers to shoot down drones. Unmanned turrets and better armor. All can easily be fitted. Keep in mind the character of this war armor wise is very Cold War. There are a ton of bmp-1’s on both sides…
That's true, but their role is so overblown now. Drones and AT weapons are so cheap and effective in comparison. And, Russia shows how poorly used armor is just a liability
Why do you need a tank to protect people inside when you can send a drone and have the guys inside shielded by the sheer distance?
Well write and well made video.
They don't need an Armor Corp they need an Armored Core.
Tanks aren't obsolete, but how they are used is.
Air forces in general are obsolete. You can replace "air support" with drone-guided artillery and MLRS which will provide much more devastating attack than an airstrike would whilst being 100x cheaper and risk. You can carry out strategic bombing using precision missiles.
Tanks supported by artillery and troops is definitely war-winning, but what would be a game-changer is if tanks are equipped with effective APS (and also mine-detectors) which will significantly increase the effectiveness and survival of tanks. Strength comes in numbers, tanks of ww2 were much more vulnerable than modern tanks, which is what many people forget. It's just that countries aren't producing so many tanks today as they were during ww2 because THERE IS NO WAR (except for Russia).
Ukraine mechanised losses during first days of attempts of counter-offensive is rather biggest such disaster during this conflict.
LOL no,
They lost 6 Leopards2 thats like 8%, germany confirmed it, Meanwhile the Russian lost over docens and docens in Vuledhar or Crissing that small river in Donbass
@@omarrobertosantillanmenese5736
По твоему мнению, мы потеряли уже всю свою армию, а ещё мы использовали все свои ядерные бомбы.))
Западная пропаганда намного эффективна, чем российская, потому что хорошо действует на людей.
@@SpaceDude.-wl5fj We’ve documented that you’ve lost a lot equipment, and according to our intelligence reports your side has taken a lot of losses, particularly concentrated in the Donbas militias, PMCs, and Storm Z units, as well as elite units in the early war. Obviously not close to your whole army. Quite to the contrary, neither side seems close to total exhaustion.
In my opinion, the main issue for you is that you keep getting your high end capabilities degraded, which are often based on legacy systems from the Soviet Union or technology you buy from us and are thus not easily replaceable, while we keep sending Ukraine more high end equipment (relative to what they started the war with) and keep providing Ukraine more training. The scales seem to keep tipping against you.
The good news is that you can take your hand out of the toaster at any time. We would be happy to trade with you and stuff if you were willing to act like a normal country.
@@deriznohappehquite
ХАХАХА, тем временем западные страны скупают у нас уран)))
Я согласен только с тем, что у Украины намного больше солдат, чем у России на поле боя, а с остальным - никак нет.
А также, согласно вашей же разведке, Россия пользуется стиральными машинами и туалетами для разработки своих танков, и что виной неудавшегося на данный момент украинского контрнаступления - являются сорняки. Я поверю западным военным "экспертам" только, когда они дадут ДЕЙСТВИТЕЛЬНО нормальные отсчёты, а не цифры из головы, дабы утешить жителей Украины и её сторонников.))
Мы продолжим с вами торговаться, как только вы перестанете сидеть в своей черепной коробке, занимая место, где должен находится мозг. ;))
@@SpaceDude.-wl5fjRussia is going to win any day now! Didn't you see the clever Kiev withdrawal? The crafty Kherson retreat? The 4D chess move of the Kharkiv rout? The whole special military operation is going exactly according to plan! Ukraine is going to lose because Russia is tactically retreating towards glorious victory!
Tanks are used today to move up. Cause a static defense to dig in. While the tanks do that. The Artillery and Air Support are used to break these static lines..
Turns out the enemy can dig in just fine. Who woulda thunk
Good stuff. That was a good, balanced summary of this war to date.
It doesn't help that Shoigu has been dismissing their most competent Generals for one reason (Popov) or another (Surovikin). That's good news for Ukraine though.
SHOIGU! GERASIMOV! WHERE ARE MY SUPPLIES?!
Well that doesn't see to have helped the Ukrainian counter-offensive and they are still get hammered by Russian artillery, air strikes and drones..where are the Ukrainian air defense sent by US and Germany?
Thanks!
Cool how the narrative was that Bradley's and Leopards were going to turn the tide and now that they haven't, everyone is talking about how armor isn't that important.
Idk man isn't looking that great for russia right now... let's be honest they haven't advanced a single meter in half a year
@@lelolson3373why would they need to? The only ones in need for an advancement are ukrs, as their western sponsors demand results, either western voters would turn against the idea of supporting some 3rd world country financially for years to come. Everybody understands that, even ruZZian leaders, therefore they sit tight and wait for their enemy to bleed out, taking slow advances of one village a month
The best RU anti tank weapon, shovel...
I have an issue with these online games. I would play them IF it would be only about AI enemies. But every time I play these games, a several other players gang up and start wars against me, so there is no way to win... Looks like this new WW1 game is the same as the one I played a few years ago that was about modern war. I really liked it, but then a bunch of other players attacked me troops ruining the game so I was forced to quit.
S. 1914 is over 10 years old. You have to form an alliance with human players so you don't get ganged on.
@@TheMrPeteChannel I did that in Cybernations. I got ganged up on anyway to the point I just deleted my account. :(
Check out Hearts of iron 4
@@thestrain. I played Panzer General 1 a lot. 🙂
I've watch a lot of these lessons learned videos concerning the Ukraine War, and this is the best of the 10 or so I've seen so far.
Appreciate unbiased analysis
Lines on maps 🥵
What you are describing is a classical Blitzkrieg warfare. It seems that WW2 tank operations do not work solely, because people on the ground do not know how to fight or are not willing to.
Neither side has a proper Air Force. That’s why the stalemate. Air superiority is key to a breakthrough by armor.
Both sides have S-300, S-400, Ukraine has Patriot, IRIS … which Russian AF does not care to operate near 🤷🏻♂️
because both sides have strong air-defenses
Armor without air cover and artillery & infantry is just heavy suicide.
Minefields backed by artillery are a greater obstacle than dragon's teeth and trenches.
Ukraine has been 'artillery hunting' for two months now and they developed a creative use of thermal cameras. Most mines contain metal that will heat up during the day. At night they clearly show on thermal imaging.
That is what allowed the AFU to breach the minefields.
I suspect the clearing of trenches is a comparatively easier task.
smh...."such an easier", THEN WHY HAVENT THEYDONE IT?smh Braindead internet "experts" are in abundance.
Why do you imagine clearing fortifications to be an easy task?
I feel like innovations in mine clearing vehicles and technology can also be a big factor in supporting armor. We have drone mine clearing vehicles that are over glorified tractors with heavy blast resistant kit. Then we have drones with great thermals that can see the less entrenched on a more visible spectrum. More of evolution with the breaching/engineering vehicles give a reason to keep armor around in my opinion.
The UA is using those homemade 'nade-dropping quad drones to clear AT mines from roads. Hang a magnetometer or a metal detector from another and now you can clear whole fields of AP mines/bomblets with minimum risk, even financial.
A good part of the advance of mine clearing technology will be that after the war is over, those same technologies can be employed to clean up the battlefields. Considering French farmers are still dying from unexploded ordinance from WW1, It would be better if that is less the case 100 years from now in Ukraine.
@ColinTherac117 Well, here's the thing, technology like that only advances at a fast rate when it becomes of convenience or a necessity to do so. So more so during war (as is evident right now) are you going to innovations be more pressing than afterwards. Nato countries, in particular, have been reinvigorated to make better mine clearing vehicles with more modern quirks because of ukraine and the realization of rather odd doctrine that they thought conventional militaries wont use mines en masse anymore. With the revelation of what's happened in ukraine and seeing how they're dealing with them, *now* they want to do better for their own conveniences in military procurement.
Good analysis, outcome the main battle tank is no longer the spearhead of large scale offensives!
This is not the end of main battle tanks and IFV's they are still very important in combined arms warfare but more in the second wave and infantry support role also as fast mobile artillery platforms very close to the frontlines. Combined arms warfare is becoming more important then ever in combination with drones,
reconnaissance, satellite intel, close air support, long range fire support, long range standoff weapons, shorad and logistics support.
Both sides failed using the full potential of combined arms warfare.
Not having a air superiority change everything. Air superiority wins wars and can destroy countries.
very professional and non-biased analysis, wished TV channels were like this
On the Western front during WWII the allies had massive air support. If tanks were encountered then stop and call up the fly boys and artillery. Ukraine has nothing like that, it's a testament to their determination that they have still been able to make inroads into WWII style defenses.
I don't think there's good evidence the Ukrainians have reached even the first Russian line of defense. Their counteroffensive is going nowhere.
It's Allied overwhelming air power that neutralized German armor in the West. The Germans definitely had superior armor, no question about it. If not for airplanes taking out tanks piecemeal, the Allies would have been driven back into the sea on D-Day and the following immediate days.
@@richardl.6143 superior armor that breaks every single day.
They're more like WW I trench warfare defenses. Both sides benefit from satellite recon. There's no ability to secretly mass armor without the other side seeing, Battle of the Bulge style.
great vid
The visibility and mobility of a modern battlefield neccesitates a modernised doctrine for use of armour.
Deep penetration to disorientate defence is less effective.
But for a limited offence followed by consolidation they're still valid , and mobile enough, for a switch to another sector to repeat for a staccato, flurry of punches type of attack.
Denying the opponent air cover is essential though.
I think you are spot on. Actually in the Kharkiv offensive this is pretty much what the Ukrainians did, minus the air cover.
Early in the invasion due to bad intel russia lost lots of armor due to lack of infantry screen, now they have the infantry but the armor is much reduced so they are using it piecemeal. Russian drones, artillery and air power also stops Ukriane from making large armored concentration
I’m afraid Russia are still catching up with the idea of using drones and their artillery and air power is now sadly lacking
@steveosborne2297 they are pumping out thousands of FPV drones that are being used on individual Ukrainian soldiers , Lancets have taken heavy toll on armor and artillery and the Ka-52s have been integral in blunting the armored pushes. They have also began using glide bombs to hit ammo depots and troop concentrations that has bled the Ukrianian counter offensive
"Lack of infantry screens" isn't an *intelligence* failure. Its a systemic failure of basic military competence. We've literally known armor needs infantry since World War *One* .
@@Archer89201 i’m afraid of sun you’ve been listening to too much Russian MOD fantasy figures .
I will give you that the Lancets are quite useful against soft skin vehicles but they don’t have much effect against Ukrainian tanks because they don’t have a sophisticated guidance system .
KA 52s have had some effect against armoured attacks it’s definitely true they have also suffered a number of losses themselves because they are having to come too close to the front .
You may also have noticed that these attacks have reduced a great deal because Ukrainians have recently received short range missile systems designed to attack helicopters .
Also yes glide bombs have a certain effect But once again not enough to stop an advance .
The most effective Russian defence was and is messed minefields but these are only effective in front of the first line of defence after that these are areas where the Russians have to transverse as well .
You really should learn how a battlefield works
not true. march satellite imagery showed several good condition t80s and t72s in russian storage not even being prepared for the warzone yet. and they absolutely have capacity to do it on a whim.
We got to get Binkov to 1 million subs! He deserves it.
Loved it
You didn't mention drones harassing armor qnd spotting it until it's bately useful and that was quite surprising!!
Drones have really put a dent in armor's practical usefulness
I see development of a new tank where there are 2 gunners - one for the main gun and one for handling AA, anti drone and Active defenses. The driver may get replaced by self driving capabilities under the light control of the tank commander.
Challenger 2 has just been destroyed with a cheap Soviet-designed atgm.
And? Russia lost Kharkiv and Kherson, and if killing a challanger is what you need to celebrate about, you do you
@@phils5093 The video is about how vulnerable tanks are. Not about bets on whether one Russian can kill several Ukrainian conscripts armed by 30 US satellites.
@@phils5093 A second Challenger 2 has been destroyed out of 14.
turns out russia was right. modern AT weapons are so deadly, it makes no difference using a t-55 or a modern leopard. Both will get knocked out easily with AT Missiles but one is much much more numerous and cheaper
But in one case the crew walks away and Fight on and in the other the crew is in space.
@@anno-fw7xnYeah, the crew in a leopard gets fried
@@anno-fw7xn don't tell him about bradley turrets
@@morlov4076 The Bradley crews say they would be KIA if they rode BMPs.
@@kalajari1749 Unless if you've seen something I haven't then there's nothing especially deadly to the crew in the Leopard. There have been some Leopards destroyed in Ukraine but most weren't catastrophically destroyed and even those that were didn't toss turrets. The only Leopard turret tosses I've seen were from Syria where the Turkish military used some questionable tactics and the opposing force had ATGM positions where they could relatively easily hit the vulnerable bottom side portions of the assaulting tanks. The only claimed Leopard turret toss I've seen from Ukraine was like a three pixel video filmed from five kilometers away and the Russian telegram in question claimed that it was a Leopard. If anything the Leopards have fared far better than I expected to be honest.
Can you please do more time travel battles, Binkov Battlegrounds.
How far are we from having artillery being accurate enough to clear a path through a minefield for armour?
What can't be understated is the superior crew survivability of tanks like the leopards. While the tals were taken out, it was rare to lose the crew. The same for the Bradley's and engineering vehicles. This allowed those crews to return and get debriefed on what failed.
This has proven effective as the Ukrainians now employ tanks in a very different way, and it seems to be working.
It should also be noted that this was the first true armoured assault on prepared positions the Ukrainian army had carried out, and they were using the NATO book for reference.
The problem is that the NATO book is effectively written to with the idea of air dominance as a given.
This I also tells in the lack of nato mobile short rage AA systems. Once again they were seen as low priority as air dominance removed their purpose. Now we can't realy supply that support to Ukraine and any meaningful amount.
The Ukranian Leo 2 crews have suffered zero fatalities as far as I know, so it's not a "maybe", additionally, they've only lost like 7 leo 2's, when they get knocked out they seem less likely to be destroyed
And, almost all of Ukraine's Western armor losses are *repairable* - the survivability design factors Western forces include almost reflexively are largely absent in Russian designs (and have been pretty much as long as Russia and the Soviet Union have been designing armored vehicles), and are far less likely to take catastrophic damage.
Note, this difference in design philosophy is not due to "Russians are dumb, ha ha" - it is a different approach to design philosophy, and in line with pretty much every mass produced Russian military equipment - "Design it so that it can be produced in the maximum numbers for the minimum costs, because no matter how nice it is, attrition is going to be high regardless."
oh are you embedded in an armored unit in ukraine right now?
7 out of how many sent into battle? 10
Just as how Ursula said over 100k ukes were lost over the early part of the war and then it got deleted.
@@user-qn3xu5ee3t50 i think
Fancy tanks are useless in a full scale modern war. Which makes T-72 unironically the best tank.
Honestly some of the videos look like the strategy was taken from tower defense games
Biggest lesson: it’s best not to leave your enemy for an entire year to dig in before attacking again
Yes, and whoose fault is that.
Wrong - biggest lesson: give Ukraine the weapons it needs when it needs them.
It's not that simple. If you rush in early, your enemy is less prepared, but so are you. If you take time to prepare, so will your enemy. Either option is a risk. There's no sure answer.
@@irdorath356 the west’s for being too pussy to send enough arms for a third offensive opportunity
@@DarkRendition indeed, but that requires non leftist pacifist politicians, so, not gonna happen until too late.
I don’t know if I’m misremembering but didn’t the Kharkiv offensive mainly succeed because media and such were saying Ukraine was planning on swinging south instead of north? Granted if Russia had better intelligence and surveillance assets that wouldn’t have happened and I think might be why we didn’t see a similar move again. That and ukraines depletion of forces makes it harder to stack up a fake out offensive like they did last year.
Yes and no. Kharkiv was supposed to be the northern axis of a pincer maneuver that failed. Kherson was an oblast capital with the river on its back. Russia would have to reinforce the right bank no matter how the media portrayed it, so the city would be more important than Kharkiv.
It worked because it was not fake, Ukraine was actually going for Kherson too, as obvious by the fact that they liberated it too
To me there are two reasons that make somethkng obsolete:
1. There is no longer a need for the rooe said equipment performs.
2. There is something else that performs the same role but better than said thing.
So good to see an actually unbiased and logical take on the situation!
It’s clearly not unbiased. Maybe less biased than other Russian commentators but definitely not unbiased
Binkov make more what if scenarios like Britain joining the axis or Germany versus the soviets alone
S-300 vs. Prigozhin's private jet.
Axis v Soviets without US & British Empire bankrolling them.
The Leopard hunting season is over, now it's Challenger and Abrams hunting season
Yh, killing 5 leopards out of 100 leopards is such a huge success!
That's why Russia has already taken Kyiv and prevented NATO from accepting Sweden and Finland's membership.
Putin is the best salesman for NATO.
once they start using the under-armored and under gunned leo1, its going to be horrible... certainly there must be some friendly western countries that have various types of modernized russian tanks (like the t72bm) and they could have given those to ukraine in exchange for the leo 1 instead, as stop gap until they get newer leopards or abram sor whatever it is they are upgrading to... giving leo 1's to Ukraine is like asking them to die pointlessly
If any tank gets hit by one of those Russian artillery shells, it is finished. Those things are huge, and will hit the tank on the top.
@@bugstomper4670 Most tanks are killed by mines, ATGMs and aircrafts.
Russian artillery is not accurate enough to hit a moving tank, unless it is stationary.
@@halilkunge9295 you didn't see how Krasnopolj works on a moving tank. Only the screw remains from the tank
This shows that war is a chess game, and it shows that russia was struggling at the beginning of the war not because its military is ineffective, (it's quite effective actually), but rather because russian high command made two blunders in a row.
you forgot the pressure Ukraine gets from their sponsors, leading to battlefield errors
Best thing about binkov videos is an unbiased approach to the subject 👍. Great stuff binkov, keep it up
Unbiased that’s real funny
@@gethomas02 why? did it hurt your russian feelings? 😥
@gethomas02 aww what's wrong comrade ruzzie? Is your dad laying dead in a Ukrianian trench? I would be mad too. 😂
@@avegromek You just confirmed his point🤦♀.
The main mistake Ukraine made was first telling the whole world where they would attack and then doing exactly that after having let the enemy half a year to prepare.
There was really no option.
Главная ошибка Украины заключалась в том, что она верила пустым обещаниям США.))
Это я тебе, как украинец заявляю))
At 13:15. Video states that Ukraine lost 10,000 drones per month due to jamming. So, how does jamming cause the loss of the drone? Certainly jamming might make it impossible for the drone to communicate, but how would it cause it to be lost? Does a drone, once jammed, fall from the sky or something? Can anyone explain that a bit further.
Also, 10,000 per month seems like an awfully high number. How small are these drones and how much do they cost?
Basically yes, rendered immobile or just crashing into the ground/tree/building/whatever. Drones aren’t exactly the most durable things, slamming into a tree without knowing where it is for retrieval would mean the end of that drone.