Drones or Artillery: What Should Ukraine’s Armed Forces Fight With Today?
As the conflict in Ukraine continues into its third year, military strategists and defense analysts are engaged in an increasingly heated debate about the optimal weapons systems for modern warfare. The question of whether unmanned aerial vehicles or traditional artillery should take precedence in Ukraine’s military doctrine has become central to discussions about the future of armed conflict. However, experts increasingly argue that framing this as an either-or choice fundamentally misunderstands the nature of contemporary battlefields, where success depends not on any single weapon system but on the synergy between multiple combat platforms working in concert.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces have become pioneers in drone warfare, deploying everything from small commercial quadcopters modified for reconnaissance and grenade dropping to sophisticated long-range strike drones capable of hitting targets deep within Russian territory. This innovation born of necessity has transformed Ukraine into a testing ground for unmanned combat systems. Ukrainian soldiers have developed tactics that were barely theoretical concepts just a few years ago, using first-person view (FPV) drones to hunt tanks, destroy fortified positions, and conduct precision strikes that would have required expensive guided missiles in previous conflicts. The relatively low cost of these systems – often just a few hundred dollars per unit – combined with their effectiveness has led some observers to declare the age of traditional artillery obsolete.
However, this enthusiasm for drone warfare often overlooks the continued indispensable role of artillery in the Ukrainian conflict. Artillery systems, including howitzers, multiple launch rocket systems, and self-propelled guns, remain the primary cause of casualties on both sides of the front line. Western-supplied systems like the American M777 howitzers, French CAESAR self-propelled guns, and German PzH 2000 systems have provided Ukrainian forces with unprecedented accuracy and range. The introduction of precision-guided artillery shells, including GPS-guided Excalibur rounds and laser-guided Krasnopol munitions, has bridged the gap between traditional artillery and precision strike capabilities that were once the exclusive domain of expensive missiles.
The historical evolution of artillery warfare provides important context for understanding its continuing relevance. Artillery has been called the “King of Battle” since the Napoleonic era, and this designation has proven remarkably durable across two centuries of technological change. During World War I, artillery accounted for approximately 60% of all casualties. In World War II, despite the introduction of aircraft and armored warfare, artillery remained devastatingly effective. The Soviet Union’s doctrine of massed artillery fires, which they called “the god of war,” became a template that Russian forces continue to employ today, firing tens of thousands of shells daily during intensive operations. Ukraine’s need to counter this overwhelming firepower while preserving its own ammunition stocks has driven much of its tactical innovation.
The true lesson emerging from Ukraine’s battlefields is that modern warfare demands integration rather than replacement of weapons systems. Drones and artillery are not competitors but complementary tools that multiply each other’s effectiveness when properly coordinated. Small reconnaissance drones can identify enemy positions and provide real-time targeting data to artillery units, dramatically improving accuracy and reducing the number of shells needed to neutralize a target. FPV drones can finish off damaged vehicles that artillery has immobilized, or strike targets in defilade positions that cannot be reached by indirect fire. Meanwhile, artillery can suppress enemy air defense systems, creating windows of opportunity for drone operations, and can deliver devastating counter-battery fire against enemy positions that drones have located.
Electronic warfare has emerged as another critical factor in this equation, complicating the simple narrative of drone superiority. Both Russian and Ukrainian forces have deployed increasingly sophisticated jamming systems that can disrupt drone communications and navigation. These countermeasures have forced drone operators to adapt constantly, developing new frequencies, signal-hopping techniques, and autonomous flight capabilities. Artillery, being largely immune to electronic warfare, provides a reliable fallback when drone operations are compromised. This resilience against electronic attack ensures that traditional fire support remains essential even as unmanned systems proliferate across the battlefield.
Looking toward the future, military planners worldwide are studying Ukraine’s experience to inform their own doctrinal development. The consensus emerging from this analysis suggests that the most effective armed forces will be those that can seamlessly integrate manned and unmanned systems, precision and area fires, and high-tech and conventional capabilities. For Ukraine specifically, this means continued investment in both drone production and artillery modernization, along with the training and command structures needed to coordinate these diverse systems effectively. The answer to whether Ukraine should fight with drones or artillery is ultimately neither and both – victory will belong to the force that best combines all available tools into a coherent and adaptive combat system.
