The Drone Mirage: Why Traditional Firepower Still Rules the Battlefield

Key Facts:

• The "Ukraine Anomaly": Ukraine's reliance on FPV drones is a survival mechanism driven by "shell hunger" and critical artillery shortages, rather than a strategic preference for replacing heavy weapons.
• Physics of Lethality: Drones cannot match the destructive mass of artillery; a standard 155mm shell delivers approximately 103 lbs of explosive mass, whereas an FPV drone carries only a 1.5 to 4 kg payload.
• Cost Reversal: Emerging defensive technologies are inverting the economic advantage, with high-energy lasers capable of defeating drones for as little as $1 to $13 per shot.

5 minute read

In the smoked-filled trenches of the Donbas, a narrative has taken hold of the modern military imagination. It is a story told through high-definition video feeds and viral social media clips: the cheap, plastic quadcopter buzzing ominously before diving into a multimillion-dollar main battle tank, reducing the heavy armor to a burning wreck.

This imagery has fueled a vocal "techno-centric" school of thought among defense commentators and industry leaders. Their argument is seductive in its simplicity. They posit that the proliferation of inexpensive, lethal Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), specifically First-Person View (FPV) drones, signals the obsolescence of traditional heavy platforms. In this view, the tank, the manned fighter jet, and the artillery howitzer are destined for the scrapyard, to be replaced by swarms of autonomous, AI-enabled munitions that offer superior precision at a fraction of the cost.

For European Union leaders and military planners looking to modernize their arsenals, this theory offers a tempting financial shortcut. Why buy expensive heavy armor when a $500 drone can do the job?

However, a rigorous new analysis of operational data from the Russo-Ukrainian War suggests this narrative is not just flawed, but dangerous. According to recent reports on the limits of the drone revolution, the dominance of drones in Ukraine is not a window into the future of all warfare. Instead, it is a "Ukraine Anomaly," a product of specific, desperate conditions that Western armies should be careful not to replicate.

The Ukraine Anomaly

To understand why drones have become the primary weapon in Ukraine, one must look at what is missing from the battlefield. The report describes a phenomenon known as "shell hunger."

In the early phases of the war, when Ukrainian forces possessed sufficient stocks of artillery shells, traditional fires were the primary drivers of maneuver. But as Western aid stagnated in late 2023, Ukrainian artillery fire rates plummeted. Faced with Russian offensives and a critical lack of conventional response options, commanders turned to FPV drones out of necessity, not doctrinal preference.

The data reveals a direct correlation: as stocks of 155mm and 152mm shells were depleted, FPV usage rose exponentially. By early 2025, Ukraine had ramped up production to nearly 200,000 units per month. But this industrial mobilization was a survival mechanism to compensate for a "gap in the hose" of Western artillery supplies.

As noted by defense analysts in the reports, this substitution was driven by the stark fact that Ukraine lacked sufficient supplies of traditional firepower. The FPV drone became a surrogate for the mortar and the howitzer. While the unit cost of a drone is low, its operational efficiency is often overstated. It is a single-use tool trying to fill a multi-mission gap.

The Physics of Lethality

The argument that drones can replace heavy firepower falls apart when confronted with the immutable laws of physics. The "replacement theory" ignores the massive disparity in explosive weight between a drone and an artillery shell.

A standard 155mm artillery projectile weighs approximately 103 lbs and carries a payload capable of generating a lethal fragmentation radius of 50 meters. A single battery of six guns can deliver tons of ordnance on a target within minutes, creating a "time on target" effect that physically suppresses the enemy.

In contrast, the ubiquitous FPV drone typically carries a payload ranging from 1.5 kg to 4 kg, often a modified RPG warhead. While sufficient to disable a vehicle if it strikes a weak point, or kill a small group of infantry in the open, it lacks the blast overpressure to suppress a wide area. To match the lethal coverage of a single artillery shell, a unit would need to coordinate strikes from dozens of drones simultaneously, a feat that is operationally difficult due to electronic signal congestion.

Furthermore, drones struggle against the "hardened" battlefield. Modern defensive lines are anchored by fortifications that small plastic explosives simply cannot breach. Breaching a concrete bunker or a buried command post requires kinetic mass and delayed fuses, capabilities inherent to heavy artillery and air-delivered bombs but physically impossible for a lightweight quadcopter.

The adaptation of armor, such as the crude but effective "turtle tank" (a tank encased in a steel superstructure), further validates the limitations of small drone warheads. By forcing the drone’s shaped charge to detonate early, these cages render the tank immune to the vast majority of FPV strikes. Conversely, a tank round fired from another tank ignores these cages entirely, punching through them with sheer kinetic energy.

The Economic Reversal

Perhaps the most compelling argument for the "drone revolution" has been economic: the offense (cheap drones) is cheaper than the defense (expensive missiles). Currently, firing a $3 million Patriot missile to shoot down a $20,000 drone is a losing proposition.

However, the reports suggest that the physics of Counter-UAS (C-UAS) technology is rapidly evolving to invert this cost advantage. The future favors the defender.

We are witnessing the return of "flak," or anti-aircraft artillery. Systems like the German-made Skynex use programmable airburst ammunition. These rounds detonate just ahead of a drone, releasing a cloud of tungsten sub-projectiles that shred rotors and electronics. While a traditional missile might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, a burst of this ammunition costs roughly €4,000 per engagement.

Even more promising is the maturation of Directed Energy Weapons. High-energy lasers and high-power microwave systems are currently in advanced testing and limited deployment. The marginal cost of firing a laser is limited to the diesel fuel required to run the generator, estimated at approximately $1 to $13 per shot.

If the defense costs $10 and the offense costs $500, the economic advantage shifts decisively back to the defender. This "cost inversion" suggests that mass swarm attacks will eventually become economically unsustainable.

The Strategic Trap: Attrition vs. Maneuver

Beyond physics and economics lies the realm of strategy. The report argues that the current drone warfare in Ukraine is fundamentally attritional. It degrades the enemy slowly over time but fails to achieve decisive results.

Drones can inflict casualties, but they cannot generate the shock action, terrain seizure, or combined arms breach capabilities necessary to achieve operational decision. They are instruments of harassment, not displacement. The static nature of the frontlines in Ukraine, reminiscent of World War I, is partly a result of this reliance on drones over maneuver.

NATO doctrine, by contrast, relies on Combined Arms Maneuver: the synchronization of infantry, armor, artillery, and air power to shatter the enemy's cohesion. The analysis warns that proposals to replace tanks with drones risk creating a "glass cannon" force. Such a force would have high lethality but zero survivability. Without the armor to survive return fire or the massed artillery to suppress the enemy, light drone teams are highly vulnerable.

The Integrated Future

The conclusion for European policymakers is clear. The "Ukraine Anomaly" has created a distorted perception of drone efficacy due to a specific vacuum of conventional capabilities.

Drones are essential enablers. They serve as the eyes of the force, extending the reach of precision fires. However, they are not substitutes for the heavy armor and massed artillery required to survive and win in high-intensity conflict.

The future force structure must be an integrated one. Current NATO procurement trends already reflect this realization, with investments in layered air defense systems that combine jamming, guns, and missiles. The goal is not to choose between the drone and the tank, but to integrate the drone into the tank formation.

To discard traditional firepower in favor of a drone-only force would be a strategic error, leaving an army with the eyes to see the enemy, but without the fist to destroy him.

Watch the video that inspired us to create this article: