You haven't seen the drone videos where they drop artillery shells from drones? Or the vast webs of fiber optic cables strewn across crater filled Ukrainian farmland from the necessitated by the massive amount of drone jamming and crowding of RF channels?
Artillery is still queen of the battlefield regardless of what highlight reels from r/CombatFootage would have you believe.
> the drone videos where they drop artillery shells from drones
No, Ukraine does not drop artillery shells from drones. They typically drop VOG-17/25 grenade launcher rounds or RGD-5/F-1 fragmentation grenades, neither of which are considered artillery shells.
> the vast webs of fiber optic cables strewn across crater filled Ukrainian farmland
That's massive evidence for using drones over artillery. Why do we see fields covered with thousands of fiber optic wires, instead of fields covered with thousands of artillery craters like WWII? It's very clear what's happening.
I'd have a look at the latest Ukraine military procurement data. Over 50% of Ukraine's military procurement budget is going into drones. Only 15% is going into artillery and ammunition. That's a clear signal of which technology is more effective.
We can also look at statements by Ukrainian military officials, currently 95%(!!) of Russian casualties are caused by drones.
> Artillery is still queen of the battlefield
That was true in 2023, but we are now in 2026, and drones are clearly superior.
> Only 15% is going into artillery and ammunition.
That simply reflects, in part, the cost differential. It's difficult to find the most recent data, but as of mid 2025 and, AFAICT, still today, Ukraine and Russia were still exchanging 10,000+ shells everyday. Moreover, Russia fires 5 shells for every 1 Ukrainian shell. It used to be 10:1. It's a huge reason Ukraine can't break through Russian lines, and during offenses hold off Russian advances. Ukraine still has major supply issues with shells, and that's also likely one reason for their emphasis on drones. It's certainly the reason Germany and others are still pursuing increased artillery production.
Ceteris paribus, the marginal effectiveness of deploying more drones may be superior to more artillery, but that's against the backdrop of existing artillery usage. If Ukraine switched to only drones, they'd lose the war in weeks if not days.
155mm artillery (the type of ammunition discussed in the article) has a maximum effective range of 30km. This means the artillery gun and ammunition can only operate within 30km of the front line.
The FPV drone "kill zone", which used to be several km from the front line when the war started, has recently pushed to ~15–25 km. Some FPV drone strikes are now reaching 50-100km(!) past the front line. This means that artillery must operate at the edge of its effective range, and soon, will be completely enveloped by drones. I predict this will happen by early 2027.
Once the kill zone crosses 30km, artillery will be effectively unusable. Artillery needs a constant source of ammunition, and if this ammunition cannot reach the front, artillery is useless. Ukraine understands this, and that's why they're investing in drones over technology like artillery.
Ukraine is still investing in artillery plants, and it's why several other NATO countries are building more capacity as we speak (for their own and Ukraine's use). Artillery isn't any more obsolete than bullets, it's just not sexy, and at the margins isn't as strategically important.
You can't win a war without controlling ground. It's why the US lost the Iran War, and Vietnam before it, despite having an unfettered ability to pummel forces from the air. To control ground, artillery is essential. Not sufficient, but absolutely necessary.
Artillery is only viable on Ukraine's side because Russia is too incompetent to manufacture long-range (30-50km) FPV strike drones at scale. Currently only Ukraine has pushed the "kill zone" to the 15-25km mark. Russia is behind. But this situation will not last, drone technology will improve on all sides, China will innovate on drone range and Russia will buy those drones. The drone "kill zone" will surpass the range of artillery for all sides.
The same pre war consensus also thought that war with Russia was unthinkable, it is Russia that focused on artillery tactics so the two assumptions went hand in hand.
It’s my opinion that artillery is out of date and by the end of the Ukraine war they will be even more out of date. It’s hard to make artillery more cost effective than it already is yet still many more opportunities to increase drone effectiveness.
This is more of a doctrine issue. Ukraine was given mountains of artillery by western nations, so naturally they were going to use it. But artillery has lower RoI than drones, drones are cheaper, more accurate, more versatile, and have longer range. It makes the most sense to heavily invest in the better technology drones, not artillery. If we look at what Ukraine spends its military budget on, >50% of its military spending goes towards drones. Only 15% is going towards artillery & ammunition.
We can also look at present wars to view where the trend is going. I'd estimate that during the latest conflict between Israel/Iran/US + gulf states, approximately zero artillery shells were fired*.
During a hypothetical US/China/Taiwan + Korean/Japan conflict, I'd expect this number to be similar.
It's going to be both, and it's because of physics.
At this moment, the best way to put kinetic energy into an enemy is sticking some quantity of explosive on them.
You have a few ways of going about this. Two we consider today: 1) a chemical charge launches a block of explosive ballistically at a closing range of mach 2-5, 2) a complex assembly of plastic/rare earths/silicon/PCBAs flies over to the enemy at somewhere around "fast bicycle" or "leisurely highway" speeds.
By weight, 1 is cheaper, and all you lose is the explosive. 2 is more accurate, but that whole flying assembly is a loss.
Now, when you do something cute like take one little chunk of electronics and stick it on your block of explosive, and then orbit your doodad at a nice safe distance so it beams a homing dot on the target - your ballistic explosive sees the dot and steers toward it. See what I'm getting at? Cheap as 1, accurate as 2.
This is a really, really winning combo when you can pull it off, but lately, UAS ops has gotten a universe more difficult with the dirty dirty EW and now with all sorts of countermeasures.
Even better reason for our little flying widgets to keep their frickin' distance. Even if they get swatted down, they can cue in shot after shot after shot, with much more bang.
Traditionally artillery shells (155mm as discussed in the article) have a maximum effective range of 30km. That means that the artillery vehicle can only function within 30km of the front line.
Drones have dramatically changed this equation. The current drone "kill zone", which used to be several km from the front line, is now 15-25km deep, and Ukraine is pushing this to 50-100km. That means artillery cannot operate without being targeted by FPV drones. It is also becoming logistically difficult to supply the large number of artillery shells needed without getting struck.
Once the kill-zone reaches 30km, which it will by 2027, artillery will be completely useless.
But artillery only has a short range, less than 50-60km. Ukraina is bombing trucks with FPV drones at that range now.
So you'd need serious anti-drone capabilities to get the artillery close enough, and good luck if you have it sitting around deployed for any lenghth of time.
Sure, but when they're moving they're not shooting, so those few shells better count.
Both shooting and moving is very detrimental to staying hidden. And with FPV drones moving doesn't do you much good unless you move out of drone range, which as mentioned is or very nearly is 2x the effective range of such artillery systems.
The attack drones don't have to be big, just big enough to score a mobility kill and the artillery is pretty much f'd in the a...
It’s rare for military technology to completely “move on” to other things. Typically, the new just gets added to the old. So, yea, drones are new, but drones don’t cause artillery to become completely obsolete, in the same way that aerial bombs didn’t cause artillery to become obsolete. You’ll end up spending on both.
Ukraine has essentially moved-on from artillery to drones, just last month (March 2026) drones caused 96% of Russian casualties. Artillery and small arms fire accounted for the rest.
Also, artillery has a maximum effective range of ~30km. Ukraine's drone kill-zone is 20km and with newer drones pushing to 50-100km. By next year it won't even possible to bring artillery and a large number of shells into the frontlines without being targeted.
Of the confirmed casualties. Much easier to give kill numbers if you have video evidence from a drone. Doesn't mean that artillery strikes are any less lethal even though they don't give such clear confirmation pictures.
This isn't correct at all. Artillery strikes are near-universally drone assisted, meaning there is a surveillance drone recording the strike and calling the exact target coordinates.
Any casualties from artillery strikes would be recorded by drone, and added to the total casualty statistics.
Artillery and drones do different things. An artillery shell costs ~$2k and provides a much bigger bang (and faster speed, totally non-jammable) than a $2k drone (a shahed is ~$20k and much more intercept-able). Drones are 100% useful, but so is artillery.
Germany (currently) isn't even in the top 5 for military drone manufacturing.
The ranking of number of military drones produced per year goes Ukraine (millions), China (millions), Russia (hundreds of thousands), Iran (hundreds of thousands), then the US (tens of thousands), followed by Turkey and Israel (mid-thousands).
German manufacturing is in the low thousands per year. This is a major national security issue, Germany is currently behind many other nations in this technology.
You haven't seen the drone videos where they drop artillery shells from drones? Or the vast webs of fiber optic cables strewn across crater filled Ukrainian farmland from the necessitated by the massive amount of drone jamming and crowding of RF channels?
Artillery is still queen of the battlefield regardless of what highlight reels from r/CombatFootage would have you believe.
> the drone videos where they drop artillery shells from drones
No, Ukraine does not drop artillery shells from drones. They typically drop VOG-17/25 grenade launcher rounds or RGD-5/F-1 fragmentation grenades, neither of which are considered artillery shells.
> the vast webs of fiber optic cables strewn across crater filled Ukrainian farmland
That's massive evidence for using drones over artillery. Why do we see fields covered with thousands of fiber optic wires, instead of fields covered with thousands of artillery craters like WWII? It's very clear what's happening.
I'd have a look at the latest Ukraine military procurement data. Over 50% of Ukraine's military procurement budget is going into drones. Only 15% is going into artillery and ammunition. That's a clear signal of which technology is more effective.
We can also look at statements by Ukrainian military officials, currently 95%(!!) of Russian casualties are caused by drones.
> Artillery is still queen of the battlefield
That was true in 2023, but we are now in 2026, and drones are clearly superior.
> Only 15% is going into artillery and ammunition.
That simply reflects, in part, the cost differential. It's difficult to find the most recent data, but as of mid 2025 and, AFAICT, still today, Ukraine and Russia were still exchanging 10,000+ shells every day. Moreover, Russia fires 5 shells for every 1 Ukrainian shell. It used to be 10:1. It's a huge reason Ukraine can't break through Russian lines, and during offenses hold off Russian advances. Ukraine still has major supply issues with shells, and that's also likely one reason for their emphasis on drones. It's certainly the reason Germany and others are still pursuing increased artillery production.
Ceteris paribus, the marginal effectiveness of deploying more drones may be superior to more artillery, but that's against the backdrop of existing artillery usage. If Ukraine switched to only drones, they'd lose the war in weeks if not days.
155mm artillery (the type of ammunition discussed in the article) has a maximum effective range of 30km. This means the artillery gun and ammunition can only operate within 30km of the front line.
The FPV drone "kill zone", which used to be several km from the front line when the war started, has recently pushed to ~15–25 km. Some FPV drone strikes are now reaching 50-100km(!) past the front line. This means that artillery must operate at the edge of its effective range, and soon, will be completely enveloped by drones. I predict this will happen by early 2027.
Once the kill zone crosses 30km, artillery will be effectively unusable. Artillery needs a constant source of ammunition, and if this ammunition cannot reach the front, artillery is useless. Ukraine understands this, and that's why they're investing in drones over technology like artillery.
Germany, meanwhile ...
Ukraine is still investing in artillery plants, and it's why several other NATO countries are building more capacity as we speak (for their own and Ukraine's use). Artillery isn't any more obsolete than bullets, it's just not sexy, and at the margins isn't as strategically important.
You can't win a war without controlling ground. It's why the US lost the Iran War, and Vietnam before it, despite having an unfettered ability to pummel forces from the air. To control ground, artillery is essential. Not sufficient, but absolutely necessary.
Artillery is only viable on Ukraine's side because Russia is too incompetent to manufacture long-range (30-50km) FPV strike drones at scale. Currently only Ukraine has pushed the "kill zone" to the 15-25km mark. Russia is behind. But this situation will not last, drone technology will improve on all sides, China will innovate on drone range and Russia will buy those drones. The drone "kill zone" will surpass the range of artillery for all sides.
This is happening in a few years.
You need both. See Ukraine needing mountains of artillery despite the pre war consensus being that the artillery era is over
The drones make the news but can’t be the only weapon you bring
The same pre war consensus also thought that war with Russia was unthinkable, it is Russia that focused on artillery tactics so the two assumptions went hand in hand.
It’s my opinion that artillery is out of date and by the end of the Ukraine war they will be even more out of date. It’s hard to make artillery more cost effective than it already is yet still many more opportunities to increase drone effectiveness.
Artillery is just one piece in the puzzle and it has its place, with drone spotting. You can't jam a shell.
But once your artillery positions can't be protected from drones then its game over for sure.
This is more of a doctrine issue. Ukraine was given mountains of artillery by western nations, so naturally they were going to use it. But artillery has lower RoI than drones, drones are cheaper, more accurate, more versatile, and have longer range. It makes the most sense to heavily invest in the better technology drones, not artillery. If we look at what Ukraine spends its military budget on, >50% of its military spending goes towards drones. Only 15% is going towards artillery & ammunition.
We can also look at present wars to view where the trend is going. I'd estimate that during the latest conflict between Israel/Iran/US + gulf states, approximately zero artillery shells were fired*.
During a hypothetical US/China/Taiwan + Korean/Japan conflict, I'd expect this number to be similar.
*excluding rocket artillery such as HIMARS
It's going to be both, and it's because of physics.
At this moment, the best way to put kinetic energy into an enemy is sticking some quantity of explosive on them.
You have a few ways of going about this. Two we consider today: 1) a chemical charge launches a block of explosive ballistically at a closing range of mach 2-5, 2) a complex assembly of plastic/rare earths/silicon/PCBAs flies over to the enemy at somewhere around "fast bicycle" or "leisurely highway" speeds.
By weight, 1 is cheaper, and all you lose is the explosive. 2 is more accurate, but that whole flying assembly is a loss.
Now, when you do something cute like take one little chunk of electronics and stick it on your block of explosive, and then orbit your doodad at a nice safe distance so it beams a homing dot on the target - your ballistic explosive sees the dot and steers toward it. See what I'm getting at? Cheap as 1, accurate as 2.
This is a really, really winning combo when you can pull it off, but lately, UAS ops has gotten a universe more difficult with the dirty dirty EW and now with all sorts of countermeasures.
Even better reason for our little flying widgets to keep their frickin' distance. Even if they get swatted down, they can cue in shot after shot after shot, with much more bang.
Traditionally artillery shells (155mm as discussed in the article) have a maximum effective range of 30km. That means that the artillery vehicle can only function within 30km of the front line.
Drones have dramatically changed this equation. The current drone "kill zone", which used to be several km from the front line, is now 15-25km deep, and Ukraine is pushing this to 50-100km. That means artillery cannot operate without being targeted by FPV drones. It is also becoming logistically difficult to supply the large number of artillery shells needed without getting struck.
Once the kill-zone reaches 30km, which it will by 2027, artillery will be completely useless.
But artillery only has a short range, less than 50-60km. Ukraina is bombing trucks with FPV drones at that range now.
So you'd need serious anti-drone capabilities to get the artillery close enough, and good luck if you have it sitting around deployed for any lenghth of time.
Modern artillery doesn't sit in fixed emplacements. It fires a few shells, and then moves. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_artillery_system
Sure, but when they're moving they're not shooting, so those few shells better count.
Both shooting and moving is very detrimental to staying hidden. And with FPV drones moving doesn't do you much good unless you move out of drone range, which as mentioned is or very nearly is 2x the effective range of such artillery systems.
The attack drones don't have to be big, just big enough to score a mobility kill and the artillery is pretty much f'd in the a...
It’s rare for military technology to completely “move on” to other things. Typically, the new just gets added to the old. So, yea, drones are new, but drones don’t cause artillery to become completely obsolete, in the same way that aerial bombs didn’t cause artillery to become obsolete. You’ll end up spending on both.
Ukraine has essentially moved-on from artillery to drones, just last month (March 2026) drones caused 96% of Russian casualties. Artillery and small arms fire accounted for the rest.
Also, artillery has a maximum effective range of ~30km. Ukraine's drone kill-zone is 20km and with newer drones pushing to 50-100km. By next year it won't even possible to bring artillery and a large number of shells into the frontlines without being targeted.
Of the confirmed casualties. Much easier to give kill numbers if you have video evidence from a drone. Doesn't mean that artillery strikes are any less lethal even though they don't give such clear confirmation pictures.
This isn't correct at all. Artillery strikes are near-universally drone assisted, meaning there is a surveillance drone recording the strike and calling the exact target coordinates.
Any casualties from artillery strikes would be recorded by drone, and added to the total casualty statistics.
Germany is manufacturing artillery shells because Ukraine specifically needs them and has been suffering shell starvation for years.
Ukraine's massive use of them has drained the stocks of the European powers, from my understanding.
So, no, the answer is unfortunately they need to do both. Though after the war I suspect Ukraine will take the lead on drone development.
Drones will still fire ammunition presumably?
Are they just producing ammunition types that aren't suitable for drone weaponry or something?
Not this kind, drones don't fire 155mm artillery shells.
Artillery has a relatively short range of ~30km, while modern drones are reaching hundreds of km.
Artillery and drones do different things. An artillery shell costs ~$2k and provides a much bigger bang (and faster speed, totally non-jammable) than a $2k drone (a shahed is ~$20k and much more intercept-able). Drones are 100% useful, but so is artillery.
Drones don't use these types of munitions.
I'm sorry but you're trying to sound insightful without knowing anything about German drone production.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/14/ukraine-strikes-dro...
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-germany-drone-production/337...
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/02/26/once-re...
https://defencematters.eu/germany-ukraine-drone-factory/
Germany (currently) isn't even in the top 5 for military drone manufacturing.
The ranking of number of military drones produced per year goes Ukraine (millions), China (millions), Russia (hundreds of thousands), Iran (hundreds of thousands), then the US (tens of thousands), followed by Turkey and Israel (mid-thousands).
German manufacturing is in the low thousands per year. This is a major national security issue, Germany is currently behind many other nations in this technology.
Attack Germany, see what happens.
[dead]