A drone like this is defending against 2-3 50-year-olds without military experience wading through a bombed out tree-line into almost certain death, because there are literal firing squads waiting if they don't. With a huge round like 12.7, all you have to do is fire pot shots in the general vicinity while drone pilots do the rest. Also, these can be life-savers for an outpost when weather conditions ground all drones.
This is a fluff piece, but these machines might become very real very soon. They're already used for resupply and dropping mines. We have plenty of videos of that from both sides. A few months ago we had a video of one of these taking out an infantry carrier. This is not vaporware. It's a bad approach at worst, but I wouldn't be surprised if this grows exponentially for many years to come.
>We prepared for the combat use of these modules for a very long time. It was a very difficult sector on which the enemy was constantly conducting assault actions. That's why the infantry needed reinforcements. But the robot drone didn't just drive onto the position for a day. Instead of real fighters, an iron one held the line for a month and a half and actually fooled the Russians because they didn't even think about something like this. (https://youtu.be/Ir6sNgW91Hw?t=226)
"Very difficult" and constants assaults doesn't sound like what you describe.
I have to say if I was defending against Russians trying to kill me I'd much rather operate the gun remotely from behind a hill than sit there in range.
Small assault groups of untrained men can still be "very difficult". The defending outposts are similarly small groups. The defenders experience very long, exhausting rotations: a month is considered good: supplies are dropped by drones. This is because as of ~2025 the most dangerous part of a rotation is the infil/outfil. The record for a frontline rotation is close to 500 days (they had to dig their own well underground). Both sides are backed by drones. As someone pointed out, the "expendable" assault groups, in part, serve to draw defenders out for drones. Further, you often hear of anecdata that a defensive position was overrun, because Russians sent bodies after bodies until defenders ran out of ammo. 5:1 death rate (Russian:Ukrainian) is considered good for Russia, 10:1 is something they probably can maintain. Ukraine has to aim for 15:1. Russian personnel losses average around 30k per month since early 2025, which, I hear, is very close to how much they can regenerate at the moment. I've watched an interview on Lindybeige where someone involved with drone pilots said that pilots with 1k+ kills is not uncommon, kills in the hundreds is normal.
It's not easy to talk about the Ukraine war, because it changes so radically every N months.
>pilots with 1k+ kills is not uncommon, kills in the hundreds is normal.
I am strongly pro-Ukraine in this conflict, but this sounds over the top and unbelievable. Are you sure this is not Ukrainian propaganda? Are there any reliable public sources about this?
Incredible. I wonder what the most kills is for a single individual through direct action? There’s always the nuclear bombshell but that’s more of a team effort. These kills are through individual action.
The way I imagine the attacks this UGV defended against is small groups of men deemed expendable knowingly going to their very likely deaths. Yes, this is part of a bigger Russian strategy which is very dangerous and unfortunately, so far, too effective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo:_Annals_of_the_Dinochrome...
Yeah, excepts apparently these good for nothing oldtimers are taking 5 to 10 square kilometers per day against entrenched integrated force, capable of launching dozens of killer drones per target at a moment notice. Do you feel the inconsistency here? I do.
A big backdrop of this UGV story is that Ukraine is spread very thin. Rumour has it that brigades across the front are 20-40% strong.
I assume that at night when it "withdrew to a covered location" there was opportunity for maintenance, battery swaps, etc.
The article says that it successfully carried out "multiple calls for fire." That sounds like over those 45 days there were multiple missions to provide suppressive fire. They're not explicit about what that means but it sounds like, "if you see anything moving in this arc, take a few shots at them". Presumably there's some AI to prevent it from wasting ammo on really dumb decoys.
A "simple" mobile automated turret has been around for a while. The novelty they would be demonstrating is essentially battlefield robustness. They aren't claiming that this machine can operate completely autonomously for 6 weeks but the incremental pieces are still hard.
https://github.com/tschak909/UA571C
https://forum.vcfed.org/index.php?threads/grid-os-developmen...
UA 571-C remote gun sentry
Obviously developed in Ukraine ;-)
Both sides staring at screens, controlling drones fighting each other.. why use physical drones at all? abstract it away and play video game?
In the near future, war might be about who can build faster/better and hit the other economy more effectively, and those who can't produce any more drones, lose.
If you think about, we moved human one-on-one battles to MMA and combat sport, this allowed channeling individual human aggression in a controlled environment. The future war might be not very different, swarm of drones fighting other swarm of drones while others watching on the news, who can build, manage and deploy smarter and more effective drones. If one side economy collapses and their manufacturing collapse, then what is left? they could easily kill the people, but other nations won't allow it, so it will stop at economical defeat.
What happens when one side wins? In the real world, they actually win. In the video game, nothing happens
> In the near future, war might be about who can build faster/better and hit the other economy more effectively
In other words, in the near future it might work the exact way it has always worked.
> they could easily kill the people, but other nations won't allow it, so it will stop at economical defeat.
Your ideas are based on the idea of winning in a closed-system game. War is waged by people. Some people actually want the other people to die.
We (as humans) are getting more strict about losing people's life. We don't allow genocide, we don't allow colonization and enslavement, at least the majority of nations agree that this is not acceptable.
So it is NOT like before. And the logical conclusion, as those drones get better and more widely adopted, is that war will be nothing more a video game with real economics and supply chain. So we basically made the cost of genocide or colonization too high to absorb. Previous wars, people got away with it.
Literally all of these things are happening as we type this. What the majority of nations do or do not want is irrelevant.
Both cases, it is sad.
And they all get away with it.
This has been the assumption for over a decade now.
> those who can't produce any more drones, lose
Already the norm. Even the Taliban has been operating a drone mass production program for a couple years now [0][1].
> If one side economy collapses and their manufacturing collapse, then what is left? they could easily kill the people, but other nations won't allow it, so it will stop at economical defeat
This abstraction of warfare isn't as peaceful as you make it out to be. Operationally, you still need to take out dual use infra which in a number of cases is civilian in nature.
The reality is, countries have increasingly accepted that civilian casualties will occur and it doesn't matter because they don't impact tactical goals.
[0] - https://www.themiddleeastuncovered.com/p/inside-the-talibans...
[1] - https://thekhorasandiary.com/en/2026/03/13/taliban-strengthe...
For example, in Iraq, Saddam was able to use chemical weapons and wipe out the resistance, this is no longer an accepted solution by majority of people on earth.
So there is no real way to actually win a war. If you can't kill or enslave the other population, and the world is not accepting refugees, if you hit one economy completely you might the global economy. So what do you do? there is actually no real way to win a war as those constraints become strong and stronger. You are left with the only option of nulling the other's economy down and hope they would resign, by better co-ordinating your drones and managing your economy, which is a video game in the real world.
How do you (detest this phrasing, it very glib) null the other side?
Most weapon systems aren't developed in entirely separate supply chains - they use off-the-shelf components that are available for commercial usecases as well.
To successfully take out an opponents operational capacity when they are using dual use technology means the barrier between "civilian" and "military" is nonexistent.
It basically means the return to total war doctrine.
This has always been the case.
It's very common for a war to be lost by the side that runs out of resources first -- whether soldiers, oil, missiles, or whatever the limiting factor is. Right now a major question in the Iran war is how many drones and missiles Iran has left.
What you describe as "playing strategy video game and call it day" is essentially democracy, and why democracies generally don't declare war on each other. Mostly, they trade goods and play football (soccer) against each other instead.
Read my other comments why it's the same. But basically with AI/Drones + Global Interconnected Economy + Multilateral world order + Global Information = new system.
We never had anything like that, and the argument that this has always been the case is missing my point entirely. But if you don't get, well, you won't get it.
I don't get it because you haven't explained what is different now. Writing out some equation isn't an explanation. If you don't explain something clearly, and then try to blame people for not understanding, you're not going to have a good time.
You're proposing that wars being decided based on who runs out of resources first is something new. I'm telling you, this has been a major factor in warfare for millenia.
This is like the future after the scenario I describe happens. But I diff, is that we keep the game, but change the medium. Humans are war oriented by nature, like chimps, but I think as the world becomes more connected, the cost of destroying one place is causing impact on other..yet there is a desire to resolve conflict in violent way.
There is a desire to resolve conflict in an incredibly violent way because there are no consequences for that violence.
There could be, but there are large emergent systems which work hard to ensure that powerful people don't face consequence for their actions.
We, as... Not powerful people can push back on that, but there's a collective action problem.
Do you agree in case your team lose to be relocated to the remote territory and also be stripped of your language, history and national identity?
We are seeing the transition right in front of our eyes.
Unfortunately, diplomatic conflict resolution is prone to failures and the cost of failure is really really high.
What Iran is doing is telling the empire that their war has a cost on their economy and reputation. And the only reason they are able to do so is because of drones/missiles (basically automated Kamikaze pilots) and I would also argue GenAI since they producing a lot of PR videos which used be expensive to make. If Iran had to fight the war with their people, US would have won due to the imbalance of destructive power.
In other words, we are witnessing a new kind of system for conflict resolution. Not war and not diplomacy. More of drones/AI/robotics systems hitting economies while trying to avoid human life losses in order to win the narrative war. This no where similar to any war of the past. The key change is waging wars without people, i.e the automation of warfare. Which is closer to a video game than traditional wars.
But people think of my statement as reductionist to the current causalities, which is not my point, obviously we are far from having fully automated warfare but we are seeing the first generation. The closest example is the fight between Iran/UAE basically a network of digital systems defending against another.
And if my reasoning hold, we might end up in a more peaceful earth.
> Both sides staring at screens, controlling drones fighting each other.. why use physical drones at all? abstract it away and play video game?
But then how will you gain new territory for oligarchs and billionaires? Are you really ready for the sacrifice that their next yacht will be smaller instead of larger? Do you really want them to withdraw from London's real estate market?
No.
Young men being slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands.
Not a game
I'm just saying in the future if all became drones war and we disallow genocide, then what do you think will happen?
Of course I acknowledge real life is lost right now, all I'm saying give politicians a video game to play instead of having drone wars.
Would you rather have politicians commit genocides and destroy real economics or play drone like video games? which side are you with?
If the people fought before they'll keep fighting, even after their robots are gone.
I know I know, but this and that and not me nor you, yet here we are and this is just beginning.
I think “no man’s land” is a pretty popular and similar expression. Out of curiosity, did you translate “dead man zone” from another language?
I just find it interesting because it seems conceptually similar but much bleaker, so if it comes from, like, French or German or something maybe it reflects an even bleaker WW1 experience.
Good article on what it is: https://texty.org.ua/projects/116021/20-kilometers-of-the-gr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_man_zone - is related to bush fires but seems like it could apply to a battlefield?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_man%27s_land
Something more akin to actually being in "measure" or strike distance vs just contested territory in between?
Edit: Sibling comment I think clears it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_zone
It's the space between trenches. I've been watching a WW1 chronological documentary where they use it, but it's also been said in various ways, as you say.
Said playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB2vhKMBjSxOb_127vxja...
Time Ghost makes awesome chrono documentaries for the major wars. And a ton of mini series on special topics.
No man's land is generic and is used in other non-combat scenarios, it could appear in an HOA pamphlet.
I like "dead man's zone" or "kill zone" as it clearly communicates both the contestation and lethality very clearly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Non-nucl...
Not sure what else I can say so I'll leave it at that, and will not engage with further comments.
Heck maybe not even a sub needed, some smaller country could have an automated tiny raft too small to be seen on radar tow in the drones
They could charge via phantom power from powerlines and will find a way around GPS jamming
The article calls this a "Ukrainian unmanned ground vehicle armed with a machine gun" and the headline calls it a "Ukrainian Combat Robot". Not a "drone" like the submitter's title has.
Edit: it seems like the creator calls it a "droid". Is that just them, or is that becoming standard terminology for a kind of ground-based "soldier-robot"? See:
There are more specific terms for specific types of vehicles, and some of those terms have changed over the past few decades.
UGV = unmanned ground vehicle
UAS = unmanned aerial system
UAV = unmanned aerial vehicle
UUV = unmanned underwater vehicle
Etc
Why? Isn't the advantage that it can stay in a position indefinitely? Does it not have infrared cameras, etc?
Flying drones are lethal, but fairly random. Attacking a point target, which will have anti-drone support, is not what they are for.
And too cheap for a missile which is the weapon for a point target
Interesting - why?
Merriam-Webster defines drone as "uncrewed aircraft or vessel"; Cambridge limits it to "aircraft". When the drone is not an aircraft, it's often preceded with its type: for example, "underwater drone" or "ground drone".
There is no way this is honest or real, i.e., it somehow fought off a tactical unit trying to take the frontline that this drone was holding? Or was it just parked in some area where there was no tactical point of even taking the territory?
Just by virtue of its nature, a single drone and/or a well placed dumb grenade, not even to mention likely a smoke grenade could have easily defeated this thing within seconds of deployment if there was any interest in taking the area this toy was "controlling".
Someone is doing a literal con job to get military graft and fraud contracts.
Now I am not claiming all the facts stated in the article are verified by me, but I can imagine one of them got so lucky with drones and getting hidden from their view for prolonged time it could theoretically pull it off. Not sure about batteries/fuel/ammo part thought.
Clearly if the opponent had wanted to defeat this vehicle and take this ground, they could have.
That said, it seems likely that this vehicle substantially increased the expected cost of taking this ground, and it did so at very little cost/risk to the defenders.
This sort of device dramatically changes the equation of conflict. It seems this article does a pretty good (though unverified) job of making that case.
I wouldn't expect even a lightly informed mid-wit to think that this murderbot held the ground by itself; and I don't think the author expects that either. Thus something else is probably going on. To wit - puffery.
