[

](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!sxUH!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ffece3199-a729-4b52-8178-8cc0d6a1df60_818x1152.jpeg)

Arthur Brogard asked:

Question from Substack:

I wonder about the drone situation - how does that effect the usefulness of a location? Are they a big factor? Do they sometimes make locations that previously would have been though of as good positions to have now become not so good?

Mikhail Popov:

Terrain always plays its role: armed struggle (to put it simply) is when everyone wants to gain an advantage, including through terrain, while their opponent wants to deprive them of that advantage using all available means of influence.

Terrain helps to conceal one’s soldiers and equipment, while UAVs allow reconnaissance from above, uncovering positions located in folds of the terrain and striking them. Nothing new — front-line aviation did exactly the same thing in World War II. UAVs have simply made this function more effective. But every clever trick finds a counter-trick — weapons and anti-UAV systems are currently being developed. It was the same with tanks: they appeared in World War I and were completely invulnerable. During World War II, they developed and became the main strike force. But lessons were learned, and in the post-war years, troops were equipped with light anti-tank weapons: hand-held grenade launchers, portable anti-tank rocket launchers, and shaped charges became widespread. In response, they began to develop layered armor, active tank protection systems, and so on.

The same goes for UAVs — they are currently effective due to their novelty and the lack of effective defense. But once defense is created, their effectiveness will decline.

In any case, the use of terrain is one of the foundations of armed struggle.

Feel free to ask follow up questions in the comments, on any topic!