Ukraine

8066 readers

530 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

100

Russian assault groups in the Pokrovsky direction are eliminated by the 47th Mechanized Brigade. (i.imgur.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

NSFW 40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Mirror

https://t.me/brygada47/970

Meaty infantry assault actions!

This is what is happening in the Pokrovsky direction in the area of responsibility of the 47th separate mechanized brigade . Armored vehicles are protected by the Russian command, instead, they throw the Russians to the slaughter.

Strike Drone Company's Unmanned Systems Battalion repulses occupier attacks with FPV. In this way, drone operators prevent the accumulation of Russians.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (9 children)

I don’t disagree with your argument, but I am curious. Where does your difficulty with the video primarily reside at?

The ability to delay the explosion to guarantee success (intelligent/controllable)?
The low-yield explosion, somewhere between hand-grenade and 40mm, which may be more likely to maim than kill on impact?
The low cost and ease of operation which threatens uncovered infantry?

I can’t imagine the trauma of surviving an attack from one of these. The fear that something might fly in at any moment to chase you around to kill you would be more terrifying than being shot at. Maybe you could defend against it with a shotgun, but if the lower cost meant an adversary can send multiple at each soldier, then it becomes a game of numbers where the soldier is likely to be overwhelmed. Not a future I’d want to witness.

[–] slickgoat -1 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Thank you for your thoughtful question.

My response was probably very emotional in that I took the infantry role very personally. There is a million ways for a grunt to get taken out in battle. However, mostly each combatant takes a measure of risk - including pilots and artillerymen. In the case of drone operators you could be blown up by some cunt sitting in his pajamas taking no personal risk in the fight.

Don't bother arguing that this also can happen in a score of different scenarios - I get it. This is an emotional reaction, but feel the same as for IEDs. Australia banned the use of landmines under the Ottawa Treaty for this reason in 1999.

I don't expect much support for this view, and that's cool. It just seems cowardly.

[–] shalafi 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Extraordinarily well written response to a question many might consider impertinent, even though the question itself was well stated. Thanks for that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Was it rude? I was genuinely curious as I could see a myriad of valid reasons why the introduction or use of these drones are worrisome. I myself am torn over certain aspects of their use and design that drives me to wonder whether or not they may inflict unnecessary suffering. I cannot argue against their efficiency (nor their need), and I believe that Ukraine has every right to defend itself and repel Russia as an invading force, but they brought up a valid point about what the future could hold in using this technology for warfare. I just wanted to understand them, personally, and the reservations that drove their stance on it.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)