> 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.

▲

tristanj 13 hours ago | parent [-]

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 ...

▲

wahern 13 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

tristanj 12 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	gpderetta an hour ago \| parent [-]
		A good artillery team should be able to fire and scoot before counter-battery fire. And that's supersonic. You won't be able to do counter-battery with current drones. And an hypothetical supersonic drone is not going to be cost effective. Drones are likely still great to opportunistically picking up artillery that is scouted by other surveillance drones, but it is probably not the best solution for attacking a battery that is currently firing, unless a drone happens to be already in position.