That’s the title and subtitle of a Washington Post article today; here are a couple of excerpts:
The attack drone spots the Russian soldier in a field in eastern Ukraine and swoops in. Only when it’s nearly upon him does he see it. The onboard camera, sending video back to the remote pilot in real time, captures his panic. He throws his hands above his head and begins to run. The video cuts out.
Then a second video, shot from a surveillance drone: The soldier’s body lies in the field, motionless. The drone zooms in to show his apparently lifeless face….
[T]hese videos … were submitted to the Ukrainian government as entries in a competition among frontline drone pilots, with points and prizes for high scorers—a literal first-person shooter in the increasing video gamification of war…. Units earn points for each Russian soldier they incapacitate or kill and each weapon, vehicle or piece of military equipment they destroy. Points may be redeemed in an online government marketplace for more drones, with which to target more Russian forces.
It’s an interesting story, and I have no reason to doubt its factual accuracy. But it struck me as oddly lacking in historical context. I’m no military historian, but let me lay out my thinking; I’d love to hear what more knowledgeable readers have to say about it.
As I understand it, the regular use of film recording to confirm kills of enemy aircraft dates back at least to World War II. And, famously, there was something of a competition for confirmed kill counts; military members have always valued a reputation for success, just like everyone else has.
To the extent there’s any novelty with the Ukrainian drone story, it’s just that the Ukrainian military is extending that system for monitoring the killing of aircraft to killing individual soldiers. And I’m not sure just how novel that is, either: I have heard that drones are sometimes used to confirm sniper kills, though I’m not sure just how pervasive or systematized that is.
As to the rewards, if the tangible reward is indeed just more drones, that sounds like a pretty obvious approach: Give more resources to the most effective units. As I understand it, Soviet Army units who had especially distinguished themselves were labeled “Guards” units, and got better equipment. But I expect that this was common in other times and places as well.
Beyond that, the Soviet Union famously gave monetary rewards per aircraft kill (particularly when confirmed photographically) during World War II; even Communists could appreciate the value of financial incentives. Here’s an item from Stalin’s order of June 17, 1942 (see also “Aces of the Great Patriotic [War],” as well as this August 19, 1941 order):
To incentivize the combat work of fighter pilots, [I order that there be] established starting June 20 of this year a monetary reward in the following amounts:
— for every downed enemy bomber pay 2000 rubles;
— for every downed enemy transport plane pay 1500 rubles;
— for every downed enemy fighter plane pay 1000 rubles ….The payment for destroyed enemy airplanes is to be made in the event of confirmation by ground forces, photographs, and reports of multiple crews.
A reward in extra battlefield equipment seems to be, if anything, less noteworthy.
So, again, the Post article is an interesting and informative read, and indeed the particular details of the system (drone recordings of kills of individual soldiers for purposes of allocating extra weaponry). But I expected it to tie things more to the history of military videorecording, and of military rewards for successful action, rather than just frame it as “the first of its kind anywhere.” I’d love to hear what readers who know more than I do about such matters think about this.
