What will we fight with tomorrow?
A question on the merits. Today, the military world is changing so much that it makes your head spin. Tactical methods are changing, types of weapons are changing, general obsolescence is happening at a simply catastrophic rate, and it is very difficult to say where we will end up in five years.
To begin with, I will make one consideration that may outrage many: the most recent conflict in Ukraine is taking place in full accordance with the canons of the First World War.
In fact, this is actually true. During the First World War, the positions of the warring parties were at a fairly decent distance from each other. Yes, if at the very beginning the distance between the lines of trenches was 200-300 meters, then closer to the end of the war it increased to 1000 meters. On the one hand, no one interfered with inflicting damage on the enemy with machine guns and snipers, on the other hand, such an increase in distance guaranteed the implementation of protective measures in the event that the enemy began to release gas. This was indeed widespread, since if the wind blew towards the enemy's positions, gas cylinders were more reliable than the rather capricious chemical shells.
The distance between the positions was necessarily filled with mines and barbed wire. And one should not discount the mortars and guns that processed the enemy positions with enviable regularity. But it was really not easy to overcome the so-called "gray zone", which truly became a death zone for tens of thousands of soldiers of the warring armies. Even the appearance of tanks didn't improve the situation much.
Nowadays, the “gray” zone, according to information from participants in those events, has become even larger. Its width in different places reaches three kilometers, so the use of small arms becomes impossible. And it is not needed, in fact, over this territory hangs around the clock drones both sides, that is, so far they have not entered into air battles en masse, although there have already been reports of cases of ramming.
Mines are the main means of obstruction
There are mines everywhere, mines were placed manually at different times by different units, mines were placed with the help of minelayers, a mine is the most common thing found in the "gray" zone weapon. Wire fences are a thing of the past, and there is no particular need for them.
And, naturally, Drones. "Eyes" in the sky constantly, around the clock. And if the enemy detects any movement, FPV drones immediately come into play. It gets to the point where drones hunt for single fighters and pairs, there is no need to talk about groups of several people.
weaponry
Let's take a little break and look at the range of weapons that modern infantry has today, in light of their use in a high-tech conflict like the one taking place in Ukraine.
1. Automatic. This weapon, of course, will not go anywhere, since it is personal. It still has a long service ahead of it.
2. Machine gun. Both the light machine gun, which is a good substitute for a sniper rifle, since it has a greater, more reliable firing range than a machine gun, and its heavy counterpart are very useful both in defense and in attack.
3. Sniper rifle. Yes, it is a useful weapon, but using it has become much more difficult thanks to drones. A sniper pair, no matter how well they camouflage themselves, can become a target for a drone.
4. Hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher. As an anti-tank weapon it is practically useless, except, perhaps, in urban areas.
5. RPO-A "Shmel" infantry rocket flamethrower. An effective close-range weapon, effective because it can be used in combat offensive formations, especially in cities.
6. Rocket-propelled assault grenade. Relevant during any offensive operations, especially in urban areas.
7. Unmanned aerial vehicle. Reconnaissance, surveillance, means of destruction. The reason, in fact, for the total obsolescence of the following types of weapons.
8. "Dronoboy" or "Trench" EW", or UAV suppressor. In fact, the only means of countering UAVs at the low level.
And we rise a little above the platoon level.
9. Automatic mounted grenade launcher. A weapon that has proven itself excellently in mobile mechanized groups, but in defense (and it was intended as a defensive weapon) the AGS is useless precisely because it is easily detected by drones and just as easily destroyed.
10. ATGM. This can finally be added to the list of completely useless weapons. Any armored vehicles are much safer for crews to destroy with FPV drones from safe distances.
11. Mortar. If we talk about the 82-mm "Podnos", then its range of 3 to 4 km raises doubts about the advisability of its use, since at such a distance the mortar is very easily detected from the air and destroyed.
The situation is no better with the 2S12 120mm caliber. The firing range of this mortar is greater, about 7 meters, but this, as you understand, does not guarantee the same problems from UAVs.
It is somewhat better if the mortar is on a wheeled chassis, i.e. "Nona". This can allow you to leave the firing position and not get hit. But in general, the mortar has become a very vulnerable weapon precisely because its firing range allows you to be in the zone of destruction of drones.
As for heavy weapons such as MLRS, howitzers artillery, then everything is simple with them - the further from the line of contact, the better.
12. Armored vehicles. Tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers. Currently, they suffer losses almost exclusively from UAVs, since they are easily detected and destroyed by them.
13. Armored vehicles, SUVs and other delivery vehicles. They have a better chance due to the speed at which they can simply get away from drones.
If you understand, accept and realize all of the above, it turns out that a modern infantryman begins to live and fight according to the principle of "I carry everything with me." In reality, even a truck is a very tasty target for UAV operators, and what can we say if a single fighter is already a target, what can we say about weapons systems, for the maintenance of which group calculations are required, or armored vehicles.
In general, in 2025 it can already be stated that artillery and mortars have lost out in effectiveness to drones
Yes, artillery can still operate over large areas from a distance, the same applies to MLRS, but in terms of accuracy and effectiveness they are inferior to tactical ones. rocket complexes and drones. And if missiles, ballistic and cruise, are very expensive weapons, then with UAVs everything is very transparent: maximum efficiency at a minimum price.
If we leave aside the detachments of UAV operators and the electronic warfare fighters who counter them, we get the following picture: already today, all combat operations are conducted by small combat groups, comparable to a motorized rifle squad, and the active tactical unit is a pair.
Naturally, under the cover of electronic warfare and their own reconnaissance drones, and in the future, most likely, fighter drones will appear. And the picture, when 2-4 people in heavy protective suits like "Monolith" (in fact, according to reviews, a really chic set, saves) will go under the cover of a couple of reconnaissance in the air, a couple of fighters on standby and with attack drones on their backs at the ready.
That is, support will not be provided by tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, mortars and snipers, but by operators several kilometers in the rear.
Five years ago, everyone would have laughed and said: “Well, the author decided to go through science fiction…” But today it’s practically a reality, and tomorrow it will become commonplace.
The "meat assaults" of 2023, which were similar to the brutal attacks of the First World War, when masses of people simply went to the enemy positions without thinking about losses, will, to the great joy of most, remain in the past. Mainly because the human reserve, it turns out, is not infinite, and on the other hand, it will still lose to the reserve of drones, which can be raised not so much endlessly, but often and with the proper effect. And fifty fighters going to attack a stronghold are much easier to scatter with drones than a well-covered small group.
Hence, "cover" is not so much striking enemy firing points as fighting enemy FPV drones, since they are more dangerous than machine guns and mortars. The only question is to give your drones the opportunity to detect enemy firing points and send their FPVs there, and not let the enemy do the same.
And here is where that very “density of fire”, which has been so valued since the First World War, begins to fade into the background.
Yes, even at Carne and Somme, when infantry ranks went on the attack on enemy positions, from where a stream of lead poured out from rifle and machine gun barrels, grenades, shells, mines flew towards them. The losses were enormous, and by the end of the war the armies of many countries received mobile weapons that could be called heavy with a stretch, but were capable of at least somehow providing the advancing infantry with the opportunity to resist the enemy with something other than rifles and to depend less on their artillery.
Moreover, in those days, artillery was not the ideal of precision and often covered its own. One of the most famous characters of the first half of the 20th century in Germany received his first order precisely for being able to stop his regiment from being destroyed by his own artillery.
Thus, the infantry was equipped with hastily created light machine guns, mortars, over-barrel grenade launchers, small-caliber mortars, flamethrowers - that is, weapons that could be carried by an infantryman or a crew of maximum two people and that could help suppress enemy fire weapons.
The Second World War did not spoil us with new things, but some armies received rocket launchers like the Bazooka or Panzerfaust, light guns that could easily follow the attacking infantry, self-propelled artillery and MLRS.
And the third wave of progress in the 60s and 70s brought anti-tank missiles, MANPADS, and automatic grenade launchers.
As a result, the infantry/motorized rifle platoon has become a stable combat unit, capable of solving almost any tactical task with the help of its own set of weapons or with attached means of destruction such as MANPADS and flamethrowers.
And here comes the fourth wave. And it consists of nothing but UAVs and “drone-killers.” So little and so much at the same time.
Let's think: what do all types of infantry weapons that were invented in the last century have in common?
The answer is simple: these weapons, absolutely everything, from a rifle to an automatic grenade launcher, require direct visibility of the target. That is, they fire direct fire. A small exception are mortars and underbarrel grenade launchers (aka grown-up mortars), which can throw their shells behind some object. True, this does not have a positive effect on accuracy, but it is what it is.
Rifle, machine gun, pistol, submachine gun, machine gun, grenade launcher, MANPADS, ATGM, flamethrower and so on, right up to the "drone-killer" - all these types of weapons require direct fire. Yes, since their invention they have become more compact, lighter, more accurate, but the essence of their use has not changed at all. The shooter/operator must see the target.
This is the problem: if the operator/shooter must see the target, then the target/targets can see the shooter. And, accordingly, give him a full program from all barrels.
Here I will recall my material from 2015, the conversation was with the fighters of the LPR People's Militia, including about weapons. And in the conversation I asked the anti-tank operator about the ammunition, isn't it too much - two missiles? The answer was simple: weirdo-man, who will let us shoot a third time? The first - the enemy realized what was flying, the second - where from. On the third, only a little soot will remain from us.
That's the whole point of a weapon that works from a stationary position.
And now a new type of weapon appears that can take off from behind the front line completely unnoticed, but "look" around with the operator's eyes and work precisely on direct fire. In addition, it is not disposable, like a missile, it can be returned, reloaded, refueled, retargeted.
But the main thing is that there is no need to place the operator on the front line to provide him with direct visibility of the target. Hence the very high survivability of weapons platforms located far from the front line. Of course, such long-range weapons as MLRS guided missiles, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles have not been cancelled, but just try to imagine what a UAV operator looks like in a dugout located in a forest or a basement of a house, as a target for such weapons?
Of course, UAVs are not an ideal weapon, they are still hampered by weather conditions: heavy rain, snow, wind, fog. The smoke of the battlefield also has a negative effect, but things like multi-day torrential rains or sandstorms (say, for Syria or Iraq, for example) are not such frequent occurrences.
UAVs are definitely inferior in power to missiles or guided bombs of aircraft, but they have an undeniable advantage: speed of response.
Situation: An enemy column was detected using reconnaissance drones. How long will it take to transmit the data to higher headquarters, which will contact aviation, how much time will it take to prepare the planes, to give orders and coordinate? In general, it happened, and more than once, that strikes fell on empty places. Attack drones, raised from the same clearings as the scouts, are capable, if not of blowing the column into smoke, then of quickly causing it significant damage.
Well, what if we are talking about the fact that an aircraft that costs tens of millions of dollars can simply be detected and shot down by an enemy Defense… Here the advantage of UAVs in terms of financial losses is simply enormous. And a bright future, unlike other types of weapons.
For example, a tank
Five years ago, it was the most powerful machine in the land theater of military operations, capable of solving almost any task on the battlefield. To support, so to speak, the infantry with armor and fire. And indeed, the armor absorbed damage from all types of weapons fired at the tank, the defense system put up smoke screens if the lasers of the same ATGMs began to aim, grenades with finely dispersed suspensions were fired, deceiving other guidance systems, the cannon swept away everything within the line of sight.
Tanks do not fight against tanks (in fact, they do fight), but in combat, a tank has plenty of targets: infantry support armored vehicles, pillboxes, bunkers and other fortified strongholds, infantry entrenched in buildings, ATGM crews and much more - all of this could be destroyed by a tank.
But alas, a kamikaze drone is capable of destroying all targets at which the tank barrel is aimed, and the tank itself too. And it can do so as effectively as a guided artillery shell or a tactical missile system. From a safe distance and guaranteed.
And if we consider that FPV drones with fiber optic control, that is, not afraid of almost the entire line of electronic warfare with a few exceptions, today fly 12-15 kilometers, that is, they simply perfectly replace the Gvozdika-type self-propelled guns, operating in the frontline zone... Just in the area that has always been the artillery zone, then you involuntarily begin to think about how much howitzers with a firing range of up to 20 km will be needed tomorrow.
Of course, operators sitting in shelters and launching hundreds of drones is a bit fantastic, but in any fantasy there is a drop of the future.
But already today, the division of the entire frontline zone into three zones of destruction (UAVs – up to 10 km deep, missile systems such as HIMARS or Tornado-S – up to 100 km, ballistic missiles such as Iskander or ATACMS – up to 300-400 km) is real and leaves no room for barrel artillery as visible and easily destroyed.
The only time artillery will be useful is during major offensive operations, when it is necessary to create a simple barrage of fire to suppress absolutely all enemy weapons. True, here we can draw the following analogy: a UAV is a sword strike, artillery is shooting shrapnel. Something will be hit, but not necessarily and not very accurately.
Yes, the changes will be more noticeable in the trenches. Tanks will not lose their power and relevance if they are reliably covered by electronic warfare and air defense systems (which, apparently, will have to be modified to destroy fiber-optic UAVs), the same applies to armored vehicles in general.
Mortars, anti-tank missiles, and heavy machine guns will be removed from infantry weapons due to their complete uselessness; what will remain are personal small arms, assault missiles, rocket-propelled flamethrowers, drones, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
This will definitely make the infantryman more mobile and able to move, but on faster vehicles that can evade the FPV drone, and in smaller groups. Maybe yes, in pairs and individual vehicles, dispersing people and equipment as much as possible so as not to attract unnecessary attention. A reconnaissance drone is a dangerous weapon, but it has a limited field of view, and it is still a person who is looking, not the artificial intelligence of a high-performance computer.
Today we are witnessing the birth of a new tactic, born of a new weapon.
It is clear that it will not be included in regulations and instructions for a long time, but it is true. Since time immemorial, the concentration of superior forces in the main direction of attack has been considered a guarantee of victory in battle. Even Hannibal beat the Romans in the Second Punic War precisely by striking where the Roman army had the least combat-ready units. In later times, commanders used reserves precisely to create an advantage in a certain area of the battle.
Nowadays, on the ruins of the practice of ramming attacks with large masses of equipment and other attributes of the past, under the attacks of drones, the practice of actions in dispersed and maximally mobile groups or small units is being born.
Five years ago we discussed the actions of battalion tactical groups as some kind of innovation. Today there is no talk at all about using BTGs, all tactics are built at the platoon-company level. Not breakthroughs, but hidden infiltrations and bypasses.
True, there is one point here... Once upon a time, a tank on the battlefield was a nightmare for everyone. There was a time when the whole world sighed for the Bayraktar and Javelin, which seemed to be something so invincible and technologically perfect. Something like the F-22 stealth aircraft. The tank, however, still remains, but its significance has greatly decreased. And no one really remembers the Bayraktar and Javelin anymore - they have gone into oblivion. history.
Perhaps, in the next few years, there will be another round of technical progress, and all tactics will have to be changed again, but today it cannot be denied that drones have not only produced technical and technological revolutions, but have also significantly reshaped the art of war. But in the history of mankind, there have been many such revolutions since the moment when man seriously took up the extermination of his own kind. This should not be forgotten, because development does not end here and there will be new rounds.
But these days, soldiers will have to put aside some of their traditional weapons for a plastic contraption that has changed the entire military world.
Information