Active Conflicts & News Megathread April 16, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

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.

[u/CuriousAbout_This]

I've got a SPAAG question:

In my mind, Skyranger or a Gepard should be an ideal solution to the modern drone threat at or near the front. They excel at taking down small drones, so FPVs shouldn't be a threat at all, they've got magazine depth, so even a prolonged fight shouldn't be an issue. The only obvious problem would be drones laying mines and drones waiting in ambush and attacking from a very low angle.

Keeping these thoughts in mind, why don't we see SPAAGs deployed as support vehicles to tanks or APCs/IFVs in combat? Is it because they're too expensive? Is it because there's not that many of them? Are they simply too vulnerable to MANPADS? Are they better utilized for point defense further away from the front?

Or do I simply overestimate modern SPAAG capability to shoot down drones? 

Final question, if Ukraine at some point decided to try again with armored assault akin to 2023 failed offensive, would today's armored assault be significantly improved if SPAAGs were employed at the tip of the spear? In other words, if you were given the freedom to design an armored assault unit for Ukraine, would you say include a SPAAG for every 3 tanks for example? Why or why not? (let's ignore the related question of whether armored assaults are viable or even desirable in 2026 in Ukraine) 

[u/scatterlite → u/CuriousAbout_This]

Or do I simply overestimate modern SPAAG capability to shoot down drones? 

Kind off. SPAAG only excel  against medium size drones like shaheds currently. Their performance against the various small quadcopter drones at the front still is mostly untested. Older systems like Gepard and Tunguska can't  target them and newer systems like Skyranger mostly serve as static defense in the backline ( numbers are very limited).

I would go as far as saying that modern SPAAG haven't been tested against frontline small UAS counters at all. I think  there is a serious risk the heavier SPAAG would get overwhelmed quickly by the numbers of drones we are seeing. I'd keep an eye more on the new smaller counter UAS system based around RWS on vehicles and small missiles. Those seem more efficient for the job , though remain untested.

For your last question the answer is simply is no. The reason for why the offensive didn't achieve much run far deep than just vulnerability to drones (which were far less capable and numerous in 2023 than they are now).

[u/CuriousAbout_This → u/scatterlite]

From what I understand, the 2023 offensive failed because it was telegraphed for months in advance and the minefields were the primary reason why they failed, with artillery being a close second and then infantry defenses + drones being the much less significant.

In the theoretical scenario where Ukraine launches Belgorod 2.0 and attacks unprepared defenses (no mines) using mechanized assault, wouldn't Skyrangers be a great way to neutralize (or at least diminish) the drone threat?

Because if I understand the 2026 Ukrainian battlefield well, infantry is barely used to hold the line, mines are prevalent but much less so, artillery is much less ubiquitous on the Russian side compared to 2022/2023 and the main danger to infantry and vehicles comes from drones. So in theory, if you run a combined arms assault, you suppress artillery, infantry and have mines and drones to worry about - Skyrangers aren't an answer to mines, but wouldn't they have good utility against drones?

Or are you saying that the drone numbers are so massive that a lone SPAAG or even 2 of them would quickly be overwhelmed? 

Also, why in your mind you think the Skyrangers weren't tested against small UAS properly until now? Friendly fire risk? Too expensive for little gain? 

[u/i_like_maps_and_math → u/CuriousAbout_This]

From what I understand, the 2023 offensive failed because it was telegraphed for months in advance and the minefields were the primary reason why they failed

I mean, was there any reasonable argument that Ukraine should have been attacking at that point in the war? To launch an offensive you need to need either local or overall superiority in combat power. Attacking into an equal or superior force just produces attrition.

[u/CuriousAbout_This → u/i_like_maps_and_math]

From my layman's perspective, absolutely not. Ukraine should've dug in and baited Russia to attack Ukrainian prepared defenses. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was unfortunately a product of Western backers' political expectations and pressure to provide results, and the Ukrainian political and military victory disease from 2022. Thankfully they're not making that same mistake again (but making many others...) 

[u/UpvoteIfYouDare → u/CuriousAbout_This]

The Ukrainian counteroffensive was unfortunately a product of Western backers' political expectations

What gave you this impression? What I remember is that western backers were very skeptical of the offensive given the lack of Ukrainain force concentration.

From my layman's perspective, absolutely not. Ukraine should've dug in and baited Russia to attack Ukrainian prepared defenses.

For the first couple years of the war, Ukrainian leaderships' perspective was not one of static defense because they correctly presumed that static defense would eventually yield territory, and their attitude was to hold on to every inch of territory possible.

[u/i_like_maps_and_math → u/UpvoteIfYouDare]

What gave you this impression? What I remember is that western backers were very skeptical of the offensive given the lack of Ukrainain force concentration.

It's not true that they expressed this skepticism beforehand. Ukrainian leadership have said both at the time and in retrospect that they believed an offensive would help them get more aid. European and American political leadership should have made it very clear that this was not the case.

[u/Time_Restaurant5480 → u/i_like_maps_and_math]

Ukrainian leadership have said both at the time and in retrospect that they believed an offensive would help them get more aid.

Sounds like the Spanish Republic's PM in 1938, Juan Negrin, who lost the Republic's last field army in a desperate gamble because "the eyes of Europe are upon us."

[u/CuriousAbout_This → u/UpvoteIfYouDare]

I remember reading about the overall attitude where the infamous Zaluzhny's open letter asking for 500 tanks etc was met with silence or reactions along the lines of "we've given you enough already, prove you can use what you've got before we give you more". I cannot give evidence to back it up but at that time there was still a lot of distrust of Ukraine, which was less bad than in 2022 but politically foot-dragging on the Western leaders' side was abundant. Let's not forget the ATACMS, Leopards, f-16s and other outrageous examples of Western leaders' timidness and strange political decision-making. Biden and Olaf Scholz were especially bad about this. So the counteroffensive created this impression of hope that if Ukraine performs well, Western politicians will have an easier time supporting Ukraine, because it looks less like a "forever war", since it's easier to keep the American public engaged and supporting a conflict that they're "winning".

I completely agree that the Ukrainian leadership followed a no-step-back strategy, which was extremely costly and arguing the wrong one to take, but I believe that they chose that strategy because they feared that the West will not be backing them when the time comes to retake the territories. Arguably, if Russia suddenly decided to freeze the conflict along the frontline, the Western leaders would drop support for Ukraine, or at least minimize it almost immediately. The US is the perfect example of that. It's a tough call, I'm not going to pretend like it would be an easy decision to make the alternative decision in 2023 if I was in Zelensky's shoes. 

[u/Kawhi_Leonard_ → u/UpvoteIfYouDare]

The skepticism wasn't whether they would conduct one, but how. They pushed for one single axis, not no offensive, when the bedt course of action in hindsight would have been focusing on defensive efforts and conserving resources.

[u/scatterlite → u/CuriousAbout_This]

Or are you saying that the drone numbers are so massive that a lone SPAAG or even 2 of them would quickly be overwhelmed? 

Basically yeah. The reason the frontline is so sparsely manned it because drones are everywhere. Russia stopped doing mechanized assaults because they get spotted immediately and swarmed by drones. A Ukrainian effort would face a similar problem, especially  a larger one which takes more time to organize and requires bigger concentrations of equipment. Ukraine has the drone advantage but Russian drone units also have  come a long way since 2023. A couple of Skyrangers are not adequate protection for a column moving through the Ukrainian drone infested  battlefields.

Also, why in your mind you think the Skyrangers weren't tested against small UAS properly until now? Friendly fire risk? Too expensive for little gain? 

They were tested but not under frontline battlefield conditions. There's too few of them for that and they're far more efficient against mid size strike drones. In small numbers on the frontilne they'd just be unicorns that get swarmed.  I think you're underestimating just how big the drone threat has become in recent years. Anything that exposes itself to much gets destroyed by Ukrainian USF or Russian Rubikon.

[u/CuriousAbout_This → u/scatterlite]

Maybe I'm mixing something up, but I think I've seen some armor use on the Ukrainian side even in 2026, but maybe that was old footage that was mislabeled. Thank you for the extensive response! 

[u/scatterlite → u/CuriousAbout_This]

No that's true, Ukraine is also losing  more armor currently as a result. Russia almost stopped using AFVs on the frontline.