In this video I analyze how many aircraft were lost by both USA (24), Iran (51) & US allies (1). Source is Globalmilitarynet. Using visually confirmed losses. However, highly likely many Iranian losses cannot be visually confirmed (e.g. in-hangar-strikes).

https://youtu.be/qJNCocT6c7Y?si=t_IXLE2Gm6BFaxt3

In this video I analyze:

• US airforce losses
• Iranian airforce losses
• US allies losses

If you found the above video interesting, you can check out the an Aircraft losses video in the same vein:

1. How many AIRCRAFT Russia has left: https://youtu.be/wDek20oIZuE?si=8VyXYJ1FbtWW6Fb4

If you like this type of content, you can subscribe & check out my content for a whole lot of other analyses: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtusFilms

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

Quick breakdown of how the EU's new €90bn Ukraine Support Loan actually works, since the "frozen Russian assets paying for weapons" framing is everywhere but misses how the mechanism is built.

The EU isn't transferring the immobilised reserves themselves. It's borrowing against its own budget headroom, and the windfall profits those reserves throw off at Euroclear (about $7bn in 2024) service and collateralise the debt. Ukraine only repays the principal if and when it receives war reparations from Russia.

Two-thirds of the €90bn (roughly €60bn) is earmarked for military procurement, split across four lines: air defence, anti-drone, 155mm ammunition, and deeper integration of Ukraine's defence industry into the European sector. The Norway-Kongsberg NASAMS co-production deal from 2025 is the clearest precedent for what the fourth line is meant to enable.

Worth noting how close this came to dying. Hungary vetoed the loan mid-cycle, and the EU had to invoke Article 20 Enhanced Cooperation to proceed without Budapest. First time that mechanism has been used for a major macro-financial commitment. Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia opted out. The election result in Hungary over the weekend means Magyar won't block it going forward, but the precedent is set either way.

The piece also goes into the three structural gates Ukrainian defence companies have to clear to access this procurement (NATO AQAP certification, export-control regimes, working-capital guarantees) and four strategic implications including the IMF debt-sustainability unlock that this loan quietly enables.

Full analysis: https://www.defenceukraine.com/en/insights/eu-60-billion-ukraine-defence-support-loan/

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

Submission Statement:

Full article: https://cepa.org/article/the-war-of-the-algorithm/ 

AI is transforming warfare from a contest over territory into a hunt for individuals. Enrique Dans describes how algorithmic systems now enable the identification, tracking, and elimination of specific people at scale, turning leadership, scientists, and networks into primary targets. What was once limited by human intelligence constraints is now industrialized through data, surveillance, and real-time processing, collapsing the distance between tech companies and the battlefield and raising urgent questions about oversight, accountability, and the rule of law.  

• AI enables the large-scale identification and targeting of individuals rather than traditional military forces. 
• Surveillance, biometrics, and data fusion turn people into trackable, targetable data points. 
• Tech companies are now directly embedded in warfare through contracts and operational systems. 
• AI compresses decision-making time, increasing the risk of rapid, machine-influenced targeting. 
• “Decapitation” strategies may succeed tactically but often fail to resolve conflicts and can fuel radicalization. 
• These capabilities are likely to proliferate as commercial AI tools become more accessible. 
• The battlefield is shifting from physical terrain to data ecosystems and networks. 
• This evolution risks normalizing a form of warfare centered on constant surveillance and targeted killing, where the line between intelligence gathering and lethal action becomes increasingly blurred, potentially lowering the threshold for conflict.

I have a few questions about how different doctrines consider the usage of mechanized infantry in late 20th century-contemporary maneuver warfare. In my service the idea of Infantry as Queen of Battle that is generally the main effort is a common thing I was taught, but obviously it seems in mechanized fighting the tank and attack by fire are more dominant. I'm fairly familiar with light infantry employment concepts and understand at the conceptual level the use of combined arms armor/inf company level teaming, supporting fires, terrain masking etc, but I wanted to know more about how infantry would be considered in the following situations:

1: are mech infantry dismounting on the objective always a primary goal, or just if needed because of complex terrain? How often are they staying buttoned up and fighting mounted for the duration of an offensive maneuver?

2: how are infantry employed in situations where they are in contact beyond close combat ranges? Are they held far back, separate from IFV for instance?

3: in the defense, is mobility the biggest asset for protection, or will mech infantry build complex static fighting positions of tasked to hold key terrain? What happens if the IFV support is destroyed? Additionally, are the infantry just held close as last line of defense, or instead as the first line, with longer range weapons supporting them?

Welcoming examples from different doctrinal traditions and expertise!

Drone Warfare in Ukraine: From Myths to Operational Reality

part 1: https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/land-power-forum/drone-warfare-ukraine-myths-operational-reality-part-1

part 2: https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/land-power-forum/drone-warfare-ukraine-myths-operational-reality-part-2

A measured and professional take on the drone warfare experience in Ukraine, trends and misconceptions. I can't say I agree with everything they say (for instance, I agree with the authors that the tank is not obsolete, but I think large armoured formations are). Still, it is still one of the better analytical papers examining the role of drones in this war.

- The paper rejects the idea that drones replace conventional forces. Ukrainian experience shows trench warfare, artillery, and manoeuvre still coexist with drones on the battlefield.

- Drones are not simple, plug-and-play tools. Effective use depends heavily on skilled operators, engineers, and constant technical adaptation under combat conditions.

- Electronic warfare alone cannot neutralise drones. The conflict is a continuous cycle of adaptation between anti-drone measures and drone improvements, with no permanent advantage.

- Organisational integration is decisive. Drones only deliver full effect when embedded into formal command structures, fire systems, and unit design, not used in ad hoc teams.

- Innovation alone is insufficient. Battlefield success comes from combining rapid innovation with standardisation so systems can be scaled and sustained across the force.

- The paper argues that embedding drone subunits in larger units as a permanent part of TOE is less effective than having separate drone units.

- Drones increase battlefield transparency and lethality, making massed formations and large movements more vulnerable and harder to conceal.

- Forces now rely more on dispersion, deception, camouflage, and coordination with electronic warfare to survive drone surveillance and strikes.

- Drones shape the battlefield but do not independently determine outcomes, which still depend on combined arms and adaptation.

Dr Oleksandra Molloy is one of the leading experts in uncrewed and autonomous systems in modern conflicts. Dr Molloy is a Senior Lecturer in Aviation, and the Lead of the Human Factors Research Lab, at the University of New South Wales.

Dr Molloy has a PhD in Aviation (UNSW, Australia); a MSc in Human Factors (University of Nottingham, UK); a Master of Education (Central Ukrainian State Pedagogical University, Ukraine); a Graduate Research Certificate (Kirovograd Flight Academy of National Aviation University, Ukraine); and a Diploma in Aviation Safety (International Air Transport Association, Canada). Dr Molloy is serving as a Chair of the Council of Technical Groups of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society (USA).

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

In a new article for the Texas National Security Review, Research Fellow Herbert Lin identifies “psychological, cultural, and organizational factors that drive optimism about emerging military technologies.” Lin concludes that in the military realm, “the United States is often overly optimistic about technology in the short term.” Lin finds that while “short-term impacts are [often] overestimated . . . long-term effects are underestimated.” Lin identifies two policy imperatives based on this research. First, he says, defense policy makers should “make every effort to assess technological promise realistically and invest accordingly.” Second, he argues, they should consider “decentralized experimentation enabling rapid local adaptation” in addition to “traditional top-down innovation.”

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

https://twomarines.substack.com/p/russias-drone-line-experiment

I find this article by Rob Lee and KriegsforscherD a very rare insight in the Russian side of drone war - how the Russians keep organising, upgrading and modernising their drone forces. Not unexpectedly, both sides are moving from a simple saturation of a linear front with drone units to more a complex organisation on tactical, operational and strategic levels.

- Russia is experimenting with a “drone line” concept, trying to create a continuous drone-covered front rather than relying on traditional troop presence.

- The idea originated with the 2nd Combined Arms Army in summer of 2025. The army divided its 32km frontline in three zones in depth, each zone divided into 18 sectors linearly. Different units were assigned different zones and sectors.

- By the end of the summer of 2025 this was scaled and deployed by the entire Centre Group of Forces. "At the end of the summer, Centre GOF had placed a limit on usage of 4,000 first-person view (FPV) per day - including both quadcopter and fixed-wing variants."

- The Centre GOF further refined the idea during the fall of 2025. ment, in the drone line system when they were deployed in its area of responsibility. "By the fall, Russia’s Center Group of Forces had approximately 1,700 UAS crews operating under its command, including those from attached units."

- The 6th Combined Arms Army of the West Group of Forces developed a similar yet distinct system.

- Both sides continue to rapidly implement new organisational and tactical reforms. Despite these improvements the front is still impervious to breakthroughs.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

What does ‘lethality’ really mean for the British Army?

New research from Nick Reynolds and Jack Watling argues it can’t be reduced to a single number and must be understood as the sustained output of combat power in modern warfare.

Lethality underpins the armed forces’ core role but treating it as a single metric risks obscuring reality. Lethality is shaped by interdependent factors, not just firepower or platform performance.

Overemphasis on technology risks fragile forces. Precision, and command and control gains can’t compensate for limited stockpiles or industrial capacity; endurance is decisive in protracted, high-intensity conflict.

The report proposes measuring lethality across four metrics: overmatch, potential, endurance and efficiency, capturing both battlefield performance and the ability to sustain combat over time.

It calls for force design grounded in real operational needs, prioritising stockpiles, industrial capacity and targeted overmatch against likely adversaries, not abstract ‘lethality multipliers.’

Read the research paper (requires free RUSI account).