- Reaction score
The argument is not that it has been possible to see over the hill. It has always been possible for scouts to sneak the occasional peek. The argument is that the number of eyes in the sky are so plentiful, cheap and capable that there are no more hills (or gullies).In 1916, trenches were observed from air observer planes and could be predictably be destroyed with a known quantity of shells from British artillery.
In 1944, German reinforcements to Normandy could not move to attack the beachheads by day due to the crippling effect of allied air supremacy. This was the crux of Rommel's argument for an operational approach of deploying at the beaches. Movement was largely conducted at night.
Exposure to detection and destruction from aerial sensors is not a new phenomenon. UAVs are simply the new flavour of wine. What's more - this phenomenon isn't undefeatable - armies have been doing it through various methods for a century. Anyone arguing otherwise doesn't have a clue about how land warfare has been fought since 1914.
Big difference between needing a government to fund sensors and backyard mechanics and local machine shops being able to build them from parts found in the local mall or Amazon.
Tell me you are comfortable operating at Suffield in LAVs while being observed 24/7 by a stand off fleet of Quadcopters.