forbes.com
FPV Drones Remain Highly Effective Against Russian T-90M Tanks
In the final quarter of 2024, FPV drones were responsible for at least 50% of the 10 confirmed T-90M tank losses, despite Russia's countermeasures, highlighting their continuing effectiveness as an anti-tank weapon in Ukraine.
- What are the implications of the high FPV kill rate for the future development of anti-tank weaponry and counter-drone technology?
- The continued success of FPV drones against heavily armored T-90M tanks suggests a need for Russia to re-evaluate its counter-drone strategies. The high kill rate also indicates that FPV drones are likely to maintain their role as a primary anti-tank weapon for Ukraine, and their effectiveness may continue to increase with technological advancements such as fiber-optic guided drones.
- How did the advanced armor and electronic countermeasures on the T-90M tanks affect the effectiveness of FPV drones in the final quarter of 2024?
- Oryx and WarSpotting data reveals that FPV drones accounted for 50% of the confirmed T-90M tank losses in the final quarter of 2024. This high percentage contrasts with claims of decreasing FPV effectiveness due to electronic jamming, indicating either that jamming is less effective than expected or that FPV tactics have adapted.
- What percentage of confirmed T-90M tank losses in the last quarter of 2024 were attributed to FPV drones, and what does this indicate about their continuing effectiveness?
- In the last quarter of 2024, 10 T-90M tanks were visually confirmed as destroyed, with at least half (5) definitively destroyed by FPV drones. This is despite Russia equipping these tanks with advanced armor and jammers. The high number of FPV kills suggests they remain a highly effective anti-tank weapon.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article is framed to highlight the continued effectiveness of FPV drones, even in the face of electronic countermeasures. The headline and introduction emphasize the surprising resilience of FPVs, potentially leading the reader to conclude that FPV drones are the primary factor in the loss of T-90M tanks. The repeated focus on FPV kills, particularly showcasing instances of success, reinforces this narrative.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, though certain phrases like "indefatigable analysts" and descriptions of the T-90M destruction as "dramatic" or "most dramatic" could be perceived as subtly loaded. These choices add a level of emphasis that tips slightly away from strict neutrality. The frequent use of terms like 'kill' and 'destroyed' may also reinforce a more negative view of the conflict.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on FPV drone effectiveness against T-90M tanks, potentially overlooking other contributing factors to overall tank losses. While acknowledging other weapon systems, the analysis doesn't delve deeply into their individual contributions or compare their effectiveness comprehensively against FPVs. The limited scope may unintentionally downplay the role of artillery, anti-tank missiles, or other factors influencing the overall attrition of Russian armored vehicles.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing regarding the effectiveness of FPV drones versus electronic warfare countermeasures. It suggests that either FPVs are losing their effectiveness due to jammers or they are maintaining their impact, neglecting the possibility of a more nuanced relationship where both factors play significant roles and their relative impact varies depending on the circumstances.
Sustainable Development Goals
The use of low-cost, readily available FPV drones by Ukraine to effectively counter high-value Russian tanks helps level the playing field in the conflict, potentially reducing the impact of military technological advantages associated with wealth and resources.