All writing on the success of technology in war follows the same structure.

A new weapon is introduced and finds success, is boasted as the future of warfare. It works and is a significant advantage for the side using it, being a force multiplier.

After the initial succes the other side starts using it too, and there’s a scramble for countermeasures. This makes the wonder weapon less effective.

Then articles are written that are the inverse of the hype following the first implementation. Even doubting if ‘this is the end of -wonder weapon- ?’

Look at the tank. With every new weapon (take drones) it is theorized that drones would be the end of effectiveness of tanks as a weapon system.

It’s not, but it’s not longer a wonder weapon, yet a piece of equipment, that’s constantly evolving. Is an arms race and it’s been like that since the invention of the club by our ancestors.

Seems like an odd distinction to make between ‘drone with camera and munitions strapped to it’ and ‘drone with camera and munitions dropped from it’ such that the latter does not count towards their statistics for FPV drones.

I get that they’re a different category of drone, and will usually fly very differently, and be used very differently. But to me they’re part of the same category of new innovations in weapons.