On the shotgun issue, I 100% get what you are saying about man portable shotguns, and then once you truck (techinical?) mount them and make them and up gun them to a 4 bore, then why not use 4X light machine guns and then add a mm wave radar director to point it faster and then up caliber it to HMG to extend the range. But then there are those pesky larger drones that need a 20mm or the bigger ones that fly higher that need a 30mm or 40mm. At some point, you need a weapon to deal with the drones that is not millions of dollars. How do you decide what that need/cost point is and create a real weapon?
RE Shotguns: As a life long-time bird hunter I can tell you that shotguns are the ONLY effective weapon against an FPV drone. FPVs would be particularly susceptible to a shot gun with #9 shot.
These UAVs get close enough and try to score an "at the foot" detonation if attacking personnel.
This means that the UAV is close enough to take down with a shotgun. Early detonation, blinding, significant rotor hit, battery hit, computing disruption, transmission disruption would all be suitable outcomes.
The payload of an FPV drone means that it isn't as fast or maneuverable as you see in FPV drone races. There is no lack of video evidence that FPV drones are often seen well before they hit their targets. So much so, that Russians often opt for a "quick" suicide vs waiting for the FPV drone to arrive or to have a grenade dropped on them. Again, no lack of video evidence here.
The real problem is that a shotgun optimized for shooting down an FPV drone 3 to 15 meters from you isn't the same optimization for shooting down a loitering UAV dropping grenades or improvised munitions.
For FPV drones I would want a 20 inch barrel with "cylinder" bore or choke. I want a wide pattern. I would want #9 lead shot. I would want about 1000 feet p/s. If you get too fast with small shot it can "burn up" before getting to the target. A three inch shell. Think quail hunting.
For loitering drones I would want a 26-28 inch barrel with a "full" bore or choke. I want 3.5 inch shell with something between #4 shot and BB. This could be steel, bismuth, or tungsten. With practice this could be effective out to 50-60 meters. In some cases, 90 meters.
There are effective and proven shotguns that can take most battlefield conditions. These are not rare guns. A Remington 870 could be used in every roll. You just change the barrel based on conditions. The shot shells are also a known quantity.
Just like hunting rifles were substituted for milspec rifles in Vietnam (Winchester Model 70), so too could the answer be... the modern pump action shotgun. For hyper-close in air defense it's the only real answer. Handheld EW is useless in a multi drone environment. Vehicle EW is OK. But not great.
What really needs to happen is a system that provides a wall of steel in a short amount of time.
A shotgun mini-gun. The problem is with off the shelf ammo. The rim of a shot gun shell isn't made for fast loading and extraction. A milspec ammo could be quickly sorted. That's not a big ask.
So that means it just takes an ingenious machine-shop with a manufacturing FFL to get going on this.
Finally, considering that UAVs are so pervasive in the battlespace I think assigning a anti-drone system is a good use of weight and crew. An adversary "two man" drone team (Spotter, Ordinance) can quickly take out an entire unit or column, it makes total sense to prioritized this. If you can't get into small arms range before being blown up... why even have a rifle???
The general way to defeat this is to move up, down, sideways randomly for spotting and the the fpv calls in artillery. The level of training to hit an fpv observing at 75 meters that is moving randomly would be a pretty high level. So after all that training and logistics, arty takes them out and fpv are more selective on who they target.
Greg is right. You will never shoot down the observational UAV that high in the sky. But the ones that are lower attacking you, you can. If you drop a grenade you can't be so high as to risk the grenade detonating before it hits the target. If you drop anything at all, the higher up you are the more wind and other forces act on the munition. As well, the longer the enemy has to react. Ryan could take the time of standard grenade fuse, plug that into the time from drop to explosion and figure out exactly how high the UAV is dropping the munitions. If he wanted to.
All that to say this, the ones hunting people are low enough to be shot.
I believe you have missed the point of using a shotgun in a war zone. The logistics of supply (ammo, repair, cleaning) becomes problematic. Which soldier wants to carry two weapons or an assortment of barrels in combat patrols? As an experienced sporting clays tournament shooter, hitting a 108 mm target at 100 yards is possible, but I have a clear field of vision, I know where the target is and I know its flight path. The Remington 870 is junk and would never stand up to the rigors of combat. Combat is an environment of dirt, mud, rain, falling, tripping and diving into a foxhole or ditch because of incoming fire. Hunting and sporting clays are fun because the targets are not shooting back, trying to kill me before I get a shot off. Prison guards have shown that using a M4 or M16 to light up and destroy drones trying to bring contraband into prisons is highly effective at ranges no shotgun could reach.
Hey Ryan, thanks for this video. I love the series!
You've talked plenty about the legal consequences of booby traps and other devices like mines. Anyway, could you talk how modern armies go about handmade/wooden traps like punji sticks, bamboo whip, stuff like that? If possible regarding the legal status of such devices. It's something I'm strugling to find data on.
Also, maybe how wood can still play some part in modern military engineering?
Hi Ryan, I've got a "viewer question" and not sure where to send it? So I'll ask it here.-
I notice I am not getting Ukraine war updates on my Google feed. I AM getting anti-Ukraine "news" kike "From Kyiv, with fraud: Why Canada is a main target of investment scammers" by the CBC News by Nicholas De Rosa and Jeff Yates.
My question- Am I being manipulated? Daily? And by whom? I've been watching "Ukraine, the War" as it becomes as a drama series, now entering it's 3rd season. Commentators derided it, while slamming "sleepy Joe". Suddenly "Gaza, the War" is fresher, more shocking and less costly (tax wise) yet it's tapering off. And NOW North America is the target of Ukrainian scammers? Am I really just a pawn, running in circles after the latest, smelliest bit of dopamine rush news taped to my butt? (trying to be funny, but WTF?)
I would also think it’s prohibitively expensive for some countries to convert their C130s to gunships. It’s not just poking a Howitzer out the side of the plane. You need sensors and targeting systems, too. Lots of computing power to make sure you hit what you want and also not tear the plane to pieces.
Interesting thought’s about the hospital ship. I think we wouldn’t want to be involved in the conflict more than we already are. Any US ship anchored in the combat zone would be fair game for Hezbolla.
I don’t want to see anymore military personnel getting killed by terrorist states.
Fully disagree. Not all 870s are made the same. There is a walmart version with one extractor rail, a normal version and a LEO version. Probably more.
You missed my point about why carry any gun at all if you die before you can shoot it. I don't think Ryan and yourself fully appreciate the saturation of drones at the front in Ukraine right now.
I'm not suggesting you go watch a bunch of graphic videos. It's truly horrific. But if you had done as much research into it as I have you would know that Ryan is wrong. We know when Ryan puts his best foot forward. He's capable of tremendous and detailed research. Today's bit on shotguns misses the mark... pun intended.
Why have a crew operated gun? Because you need it. Why have a designated marksman? Because you need him. Units in Ukraine would be best served if they had 2 or three guys with shot guns slung on their backs ready to shoot down drones. Because like have said... why carry a long gun if you don't live long enough to use it? <---- Until I see this point refuted any argument against what I am saying is moot.
Ukraine is relying heavily on FPV drones right now because it's about all they have left and the drones are VERY effective.
There is ample video evidence of people trying to shoot down drowns with long rifles. It's not reliable. If you are moving and drone is moving, unless you are practiced in this scenario, you will miss. Sitting on a prison wall shooting drones isn't really analogous to anything in war. As you mentioned, the drone isn't trying to kill them. There are no consequences if they miss. (PS... your prison guard contact might be lying to you. Shooting on a ballistic arch with a 5.56 round is VERY dangerous. So, unless the prison is located in a location with MILES of uninhabited area around it, no one is shooting into the air at drones with a rifle. )
I stand by my comment. It's well reasoned. It's based on my direct experience as a bird hunter, a gun smith, and having spent more than a decade being in the firearms business. It's also based on the fact that my job is to research Ukraine, so I am very aware of the situation at the front. (Not as aware as those who are actually there everyday living it.)
Just to be pedantic, potable's root is similar to potion rather than pot. So potable is pronounced with a long o sound like potion.
Alex Trebek taught me this on Jeopardy "potent potables for 200 Alex".
Potable potare pot over potion.
On the shotgun issue, I 100% get what you are saying about man portable shotguns, and then once you truck (techinical?) mount them and make them and up gun them to a 4 bore, then why not use 4X light machine guns and then add a mm wave radar director to point it faster and then up caliber it to HMG to extend the range. But then there are those pesky larger drones that need a 20mm or the bigger ones that fly higher that need a 30mm or 40mm. At some point, you need a weapon to deal with the drones that is not millions of dollars. How do you decide what that need/cost point is and create a real weapon?
Great points.
RE Shotguns: As a life long-time bird hunter I can tell you that shotguns are the ONLY effective weapon against an FPV drone. FPVs would be particularly susceptible to a shot gun with #9 shot.
These UAVs get close enough and try to score an "at the foot" detonation if attacking personnel.
This means that the UAV is close enough to take down with a shotgun. Early detonation, blinding, significant rotor hit, battery hit, computing disruption, transmission disruption would all be suitable outcomes.
The payload of an FPV drone means that it isn't as fast or maneuverable as you see in FPV drone races. There is no lack of video evidence that FPV drones are often seen well before they hit their targets. So much so, that Russians often opt for a "quick" suicide vs waiting for the FPV drone to arrive or to have a grenade dropped on them. Again, no lack of video evidence here.
The real problem is that a shotgun optimized for shooting down an FPV drone 3 to 15 meters from you isn't the same optimization for shooting down a loitering UAV dropping grenades or improvised munitions.
For FPV drones I would want a 20 inch barrel with "cylinder" bore or choke. I want a wide pattern. I would want #9 lead shot. I would want about 1000 feet p/s. If you get too fast with small shot it can "burn up" before getting to the target. A three inch shell. Think quail hunting.
For loitering drones I would want a 26-28 inch barrel with a "full" bore or choke. I want 3.5 inch shell with something between #4 shot and BB. This could be steel, bismuth, or tungsten. With practice this could be effective out to 50-60 meters. In some cases, 90 meters.
There are effective and proven shotguns that can take most battlefield conditions. These are not rare guns. A Remington 870 could be used in every roll. You just change the barrel based on conditions. The shot shells are also a known quantity.
Just like hunting rifles were substituted for milspec rifles in Vietnam (Winchester Model 70), so too could the answer be... the modern pump action shotgun. For hyper-close in air defense it's the only real answer. Handheld EW is useless in a multi drone environment. Vehicle EW is OK. But not great.
What really needs to happen is a system that provides a wall of steel in a short amount of time.
A shotgun mini-gun. The problem is with off the shelf ammo. The rim of a shot gun shell isn't made for fast loading and extraction. A milspec ammo could be quickly sorted. That's not a big ask.
So that means it just takes an ingenious machine-shop with a manufacturing FFL to get going on this.
Finally, considering that UAVs are so pervasive in the battlespace I think assigning a anti-drone system is a good use of weight and crew. An adversary "two man" drone team (Spotter, Ordinance) can quickly take out an entire unit or column, it makes total sense to prioritized this. If you can't get into small arms range before being blown up... why even have a rifle???
The general way to defeat this is to move up, down, sideways randomly for spotting and the the fpv calls in artillery. The level of training to hit an fpv observing at 75 meters that is moving randomly would be a pretty high level. So after all that training and logistics, arty takes them out and fpv are more selective on who they target.
Greg is right. You will never shoot down the observational UAV that high in the sky. But the ones that are lower attacking you, you can. If you drop a grenade you can't be so high as to risk the grenade detonating before it hits the target. If you drop anything at all, the higher up you are the more wind and other forces act on the munition. As well, the longer the enemy has to react. Ryan could take the time of standard grenade fuse, plug that into the time from drop to explosion and figure out exactly how high the UAV is dropping the munitions. If he wanted to.
All that to say this, the ones hunting people are low enough to be shot.
I believe you have missed the point of using a shotgun in a war zone. The logistics of supply (ammo, repair, cleaning) becomes problematic. Which soldier wants to carry two weapons or an assortment of barrels in combat patrols? As an experienced sporting clays tournament shooter, hitting a 108 mm target at 100 yards is possible, but I have a clear field of vision, I know where the target is and I know its flight path. The Remington 870 is junk and would never stand up to the rigors of combat. Combat is an environment of dirt, mud, rain, falling, tripping and diving into a foxhole or ditch because of incoming fire. Hunting and sporting clays are fun because the targets are not shooting back, trying to kill me before I get a shot off. Prison guards have shown that using a M4 or M16 to light up and destroy drones trying to bring contraband into prisons is highly effective at ranges no shotgun could reach.
Hey Ryan, thanks for this video. I love the series!
You've talked plenty about the legal consequences of booby traps and other devices like mines. Anyway, could you talk how modern armies go about handmade/wooden traps like punji sticks, bamboo whip, stuff like that? If possible regarding the legal status of such devices. It's something I'm strugling to find data on.
Also, maybe how wood can still play some part in modern military engineering?
Thanks Ryan, love your content.
I would have to research that. I’m familiar with these traps but I’m not sure of they’re legal status.
Hi Ryan, I've got a "viewer question" and not sure where to send it? So I'll ask it here.-
I notice I am not getting Ukraine war updates on my Google feed. I AM getting anti-Ukraine "news" kike "From Kyiv, with fraud: Why Canada is a main target of investment scammers" by the CBC News by Nicholas De Rosa and Jeff Yates.
My question- Am I being manipulated? Daily? And by whom? I've been watching "Ukraine, the War" as it becomes as a drama series, now entering it's 3rd season. Commentators derided it, while slamming "sleepy Joe". Suddenly "Gaza, the War" is fresher, more shocking and less costly (tax wise) yet it's tapering off. And NOW North America is the target of Ukrainian scammers? Am I really just a pawn, running in circles after the latest, smelliest bit of dopamine rush news taped to my butt? (trying to be funny, but WTF?)
The solution is to mount a shotgun on an anti-drone drone and go kill the mofo.
I would also think it’s prohibitively expensive for some countries to convert their C130s to gunships. It’s not just poking a Howitzer out the side of the plane. You need sensors and targeting systems, too. Lots of computing power to make sure you hit what you want and also not tear the plane to pieces.
Interesting thought’s about the hospital ship. I think we wouldn’t want to be involved in the conflict more than we already are. Any US ship anchored in the combat zone would be fair game for Hezbolla.
I don’t want to see anymore military personnel getting killed by terrorist states.
Fully disagree. Not all 870s are made the same. There is a walmart version with one extractor rail, a normal version and a LEO version. Probably more.
You missed my point about why carry any gun at all if you die before you can shoot it. I don't think Ryan and yourself fully appreciate the saturation of drones at the front in Ukraine right now.
I'm not suggesting you go watch a bunch of graphic videos. It's truly horrific. But if you had done as much research into it as I have you would know that Ryan is wrong. We know when Ryan puts his best foot forward. He's capable of tremendous and detailed research. Today's bit on shotguns misses the mark... pun intended.
Why have a crew operated gun? Because you need it. Why have a designated marksman? Because you need him. Units in Ukraine would be best served if they had 2 or three guys with shot guns slung on their backs ready to shoot down drones. Because like have said... why carry a long gun if you don't live long enough to use it? <---- Until I see this point refuted any argument against what I am saying is moot.
Ukraine is relying heavily on FPV drones right now because it's about all they have left and the drones are VERY effective.
There is ample video evidence of people trying to shoot down drowns with long rifles. It's not reliable. If you are moving and drone is moving, unless you are practiced in this scenario, you will miss. Sitting on a prison wall shooting drones isn't really analogous to anything in war. As you mentioned, the drone isn't trying to kill them. There are no consequences if they miss. (PS... your prison guard contact might be lying to you. Shooting on a ballistic arch with a 5.56 round is VERY dangerous. So, unless the prison is located in a location with MILES of uninhabited area around it, no one is shooting into the air at drones with a rifle. )
I stand by my comment. It's well reasoned. It's based on my direct experience as a bird hunter, a gun smith, and having spent more than a decade being in the firearms business. It's also based on the fact that my job is to research Ukraine, so I am very aware of the situation at the front. (Not as aware as those who are actually there everyday living it.)
Another outstanding presentation! Your ability to clearly communicate complex issues is very refreshing.
I want to subscribe but won't use Apple Pay. is there another way? TY for your greatness, love the education.
This was from your old apartment? The new place looks nice. Have a good weekend, Charles