[GK3]

Our moderators have a very difficult task.  I refer you, myself and others to Carl von Clausewitz's statement that War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.  If you accept his theory then War is simply another form of politics, plain and simple.  Personally I believe the Ukrainian situation is a clear confirmation of his theory.  

That said I believe this board is not the place for the discussion that can arrive from consideration of his theory as it applies to this situation.  What is very interesting about this war is that it appears to be a watershed moment in the development of tactics, weapons and strategic thinking about the conduct of conflict between parties. 
I think this NYT article clearly articulates how this watershed moment is happening: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025...hs.htmlhap
It describes how tanks, including the Abrams have been reduced to having little value. Drones dominate the frontlines and miles of fiber optic cable dangle from the trees.  Watch that film clip of a Ukrainian drone flying along a trench line dropping molten metal on the occupants. A far cry from my day in the jungles of SE Asia. 
There has been a lot of discussion this board of drone warfare, but the problem is that it is developing so fast that keep up with it is very hard and as the Time article describes some of this development does not occur in a lab but in a bunker in the war zone.  How many drones can you build for the cost of a single M1 Abrams?  This is basically war on the cheap but just as deadly.  Another issue this conflict is raises is whether a small country and hold its own against a much larger country simply through drones.  Drones are far cheaper, easier to produce and just as effective.  How much do they level the playing field.  Maybe none at all in the long term since if you do not have any land in which to put your bunker then you are sort of of out of luck. 
Another aspect of this is how much is this costing Russia in the long term. 
Another thought is will this war result in simply a war between drones? If drones have taken artillery and armor out of play and reduced the infantry to cowering in its bunkers, will the side with the best drones win? 
I think that this conflict will force every country with an army of significance will have to rethink everything after seeing how this conflict is playing out.

While drone warfare is having a massive impact in Ukraine, there clearly are limits. They seem much more effective as a defensive weapon then an offensive one. The increased situational awareness appears to favor the defender, as shown by both sides struggles to make meaningful advances without Russias use of human waves. 

We also saw in Gaza, that tanks, supported by infantry and air, could effectively neutralize drones and more importantly, their operators, though some losses are inevitable. 

This may be change as land-based drones become more advanced, but then they may lose some of the cheapness that makes them so attractive as an option.

I think you are absolutely correct that drones are not yet a mature weapons system.  Russian losses in terms of tanks and artillery pieces in the conflict are brobdingnagian I believe that a significant number of those were caused by drones.  Reports reflect that Russia has lost roughly 10,425 tanks and 21590 artillery pieces. Certainly many of those losses can be attributed to the longer range weapons we supplied fairly early in the conflict.  
The following article discusses the effectiveness of Ukraine's drones.  How accurate the information is undetermined as far as I know, but it would help explain those brobdingnagian equipment losses. 
https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/49712
Another interesting article: https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-...ar-2024-11
Other reports reflect that our Abrams tank has not fared well for many of the same reasons. 
Anti drone technology has also improved by leaps and bounds, causing both sides to use fiber optic cable attached to drones to control them.- This picture reflects the aftermath of many drones flying over one area. 
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideo...es_flying/
A big question is whether you can saturate an area with drones sufficiently that the defensive measures fail?  
A lot of questions to be answered here before we know the future of drone warfare.  When Russia first invaded, the big money said Ukraine was done in a week, and now here we are in a situation where Russia's sole advantage is a willingness to throw its conscripts into human wave attacks much like they did in WWII to save Stalingrad. 
Small state actors like Hezbollah, Houthi's etc can generate threats from drones, but they don't have the ability to generate drones at the rate of 300,000 a month.  Plus as I understand it jamming drones controlled by fiber optic cable is difficult, maybe impossible. At the immediate front, the drone doesn't need range it just needs control.  If you have seen the film clip of a Ukrainian drone flying down a Russian trench line dropping molten aluminum bits on the people in it you can understand its deadly effects. If it is true that Ukraine has found a way to jam the Russian glide bombs then once again the EE's get a win.  
To participate in the drone wars, you need the ability to make a lot of them, fast. Most of what you make may end up doing nothing but what matters can you get enough of them through jamming or whatever to hit their target.  I see these issues as yet unanswered but I also think that the armor and artillery branches that ruled more recent major conflicts may become less important.  A lot is going happen before we know how this will play out.

[GK3]

Our moderators have a very difficult task.  I refer you, myself and others to Carl von Clausewitz's statement that War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.  If you accept his theory then War is simply another form of politics, plain and simple.  Personally I believe the Ukrainian situation is a clear confirmation of his theory.  

That said I believe this board is not the place for the discussion that can arrive from consideration of his theory as it applies to this situation.  What is very interesting about this war is that it appears to be a watershed moment in the development of tactics, weapons and strategic thinking about the conduct of conflict between parties. 
I think this NYT article clearly articulates how this watershed moment is happening: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025...hs.htmlhap
It describes how tanks, including the Abrams have been reduced to having little value. Drones dominate the frontlines and miles of fiber optic cable dangle from the trees.  Watch that film clip of a Ukrainian drone flying along a trench line dropping molten metal on the occupants. A far cry from my day in the jungles of SE Asia. 
There has been a lot of discussion this board of drone warfare, but the problem is that it is developing so fast that keep up with it is very hard and as the Time article describes some of this development does not occur in a lab but in a bunker in the war zone.  How many drones can you build for the cost of a single M1 Abrams?  This is basically war on the cheap but just as deadly.  Another issue this conflict is raises is whether a small country and hold its own against a much larger country simply through drones.  Drones are far cheaper, easier to produce and just as effective.  How much do they level the playing field.  Maybe none at all in the long term since if you do not have any land in which to put your bunker then you are sort of of out of luck. 
Another aspect of this is how much is this costing Russia in the long term. 
Another thought is will this war result in simply a war between drones? If drones have taken artillery and armor out of play and reduced the infantry to cowering in its bunkers, will the side with the best drones win? 
I think that this conflict will force every country with an army of significance will have to rethink everything after seeing how this conflict is playing out.

While drone warfare is having a massive impact in Ukraine, there clearly are limits. They seem much more effective as a defensive weapon then an offensive one. The increased situational awareness appears to favor the defender, as shown by both sides struggles to make meaningful advances without Russias use of human waves. 

We also saw in Gaza, that tanks, supported by infantry and air, could effectively neutralize drones and more importantly, their operators, though some losses are inevitable. 

This may be change as land-based drones become more advanced, but then they may lose some of the cheapness that makes them so attractive as an option.

I think you are absolutely correct that drones are not yet a mature weapons system.  Russian losses in terms of tanks and artillery pieces in the conflict are brobdingnagian I believe that a significant number of those were caused by drones.  Reports reflect that Russia has lost roughly 10,425 tanks and 21590 artillery pieces. Certainly many of those losses can be attributed to the longer range weapons we supplied fairly early in the conflict.  
The following article discusses the effectiveness of Ukraine's drones.  How accurate the information is undetermined as far as I know, but it would help explain those brobdingnagian equipment losses. 
https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/49712
Another interesting article: https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-...ar-2024-11
Other reports reflect that our Abrams tank has not fared well for many of the same reasons. 
Anti drone technology has also improved by leaps and bounds, causing both sides to use fiber optic cable attached to drones to control them.- This picture reflects the aftermath of many drones flying over one area. 
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideo...es_flying/
A big question is whether you can saturate an area with drones sufficiently that the defensive measures fail?  
A lot of questions to be answered here before we know the future of drone warfare.  When Russia first invaded, the big money said Ukraine was done in a week, and now here we are in a situation where Russia's sole advantage is a willingness to throw its conscripts into human wave attacks much like they did in WWII to save Stalingrad. 
Small state actors like Hezbollah, Houthi's etc can generate threats from drones, but they don't have the ability to generate drones at the rate of 300,000 a month.  Plus as I understand it jamming drones controlled by fiber optic cable is difficult, maybe impossible. At the immediate front, the drone doesn't need range it just needs control.  If you have seen the film clip of a Ukrainian drone flying down a Russian trench line dropping molten aluminum bits on the people in it you can understand its deadly effects. If it is true that Ukraine has found a way to jam the Russian glide bombs then once again the EE's get a win.  
To participate in the drone wars, you need the ability to make a lot of them, fast. Most of what you make may end up doing nothing but what matters can you get enough of them through jamming or whatever to hit their target.  I see these issues as yet unanswered but I also think that the armor and artillery branches that ruled more recent major conflicts may become less important.  A lot is going happen before we know how this will play out.