Attack of the Super Drones

The Fog of War, Part 1: Lots of reporting on the war in Ukraine is just propaganda. Also, Wikipedia is filled with garbage. You probably knew that part already.

Article headline from france24.com

The headline above is from an article¹ about the fighting on Snake Island, published by France 24. Before getting into the article let’s take a look at the mission statement for France 24. According to their website:

The networks of France Médias Monde - France 24, RFI and MCD - are dedicated to providing news that is based on facts. Impartial, factual reporting is the best weapon against all kinds of fake news : rumour, propaganda and clickbait. (France 24)

This is a fascinating statement to read immediately after looking at their own clickbait article about Snake Island. They managed to hit at least two out of three from the “rumor, propaganda and clickbait” trifecta.

The entire thing is so preposterous I was forced to consult an online thesaurus² because I was running out of ways to say “absurd.”

---

France 24 on Snake Island

The well researched and balanced article³ opens by explaining the crucial-ness of the island, which apparently stems from its symbolic importance rather than its strategic importance.

Snake Island, a tiny piece of land in the Black Sea near the Ukrainian port city of Odesa, has taken on symbolic importance for both sides in the conflict. (France 24)

It’s not clear who, on the Russian side, ever said the island had symbolic importance to the Russians - but let’s not have that get in the way of good propaganda. The writer did, at one point, talk to someone who studies military strategy for a living. From later in the same article:

Nevertheless, some analysts raise their eyebrows at the fighting over Snake Island. “It has very limited strategic importance in terms of who controls the Black Sea”, said Jeff Hawn, an expert on Russian military issues and a non-resident fellow at the New Lines Institute, a US geopolitical research centre. (France 24)

Contradicting his own source, the author goes on to explain that no, Snake Island is super critical because it controls the access to Odessa where the Ukrainian grain is loaded onto ships.

Snake Island’s most significant quality is its proximity to Odesa; it has often been described as a gateway to Ukraine’s pre-eminent port. In theory, whoever controls this piece of land also controls access to Odesa. Snake Island could thus be vital to preventing a full-blown global food crisis, given that Ukraine once exported some 4.5 million tons of food per month through Odesa before the port was blockaded by Russia. (France 24)

If you read my article titled Mines, Missiles, and Montreux you know that shipments in and out of Odessa have been stopped without Russian control of Snake Island. But according to the author, whichever country has a handful of troops sitting on a tiny rock in the Black Sea will determine whether there’s a “full-blown global food crisis” incoming. The article is simply using emotionally manipulative propaganda to boost the relevance of Snake Island.

Another expert quoted by the article points out the limited usefulness of the island, and the defensive nature of the equipment the Russians have attempted to put on it.

But Tack suggested Snake Island’s strategic value is overestimated in this regard: “The military equipment stationed there is essentially defensive and has a very limited range,” he said. (France 24)

But the the author at France 24 keeps contradicting his own sources (and common sense).

Like a warship, Snake Island provides an observation post from which to detect enemy movements in the area and can be used to bombard passing ships and planes. Ukraine must also keep an eye out to ensure that Russia does not launch an amphibious assault using Snake Island as an outpost. (France 24)

The phrase “launch and amphibious assault using Snake Island” is simply ludicrous to anyone who’s bothered to even look at a map.

острів Змії́ний (ostriv Zmiinyi) AKA Snake Island

So where is this little island that’s so crucial to writers of bad new articles? According to the article, the island is …

… a piece of rock smaller than 0.7 square kilometres located about 40km southwest of Odesa. (France 24)

That’s all wrong, of course. The island is 0.17 square kilometers, not 0.7 - so that’s smaller, I suppose. But 40 km southwest of Odessa isn’t even in the Black Sea, it’s the bottom of the Dnister River where it widens out to a few miles before flowing into the Black Sea.

In reality, Snake Island is tiny (about 500 yards wide, and a total of about 40 acres) island in the Black Sea, about 36 km (22 miles) offshore from the southern tip of Ukraine. It has no water, useful resources or indigenous population. No fortifications, deep bunkers or other protection for military equipment, and no place to hide - it’s just a tiny, almost flat, rock.

The little label says “Insula serpilor” which is the Romanian name for the island. Romania has disputed ownership of the island with Ukraine. Someone please remind the engineers at Google that they’re supposed to be supporting Ukraine. Consistency, people. (Image from Google Earth)

The island is about 140 km (87 miles) south of the city of Odessa in the Black Sea. To the west of the island is the very southern tip of Ukraine, and just below that is Romania. There’s not much of strategic value in this part of Ukraine.

Snake Island is the tiny dot left of center on the map. The “village” of Bile is marked on the map rather than the name of the island. (Image from Google Earth)

The Ukrainians and Romanians previously disputed ownership of the island, which was left under the control of Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union. That dispute centered around the exclusive economic zones of each country, which are defined using shorelines of occupied territory.

During these negotiations, the Ukrainians established a small town on the island so it would be “inhabited.” But this forty acre rock in the Black Sea is so far south it’s barely in Ukraine.

Beyond this dispute over economic rights, the island’s strategic value to the Ukrainians is zero. Basing Ukrainian missiles on the island only adds a fraction to their effective range, at the cost of putting them in an exposed location where they would likely be destroyed.

How about the Russians using it for an amphibious assault? Did I already mention the island is only about 40 acres? The island has a tiny, wooden dock that can’t take the weight of a single vehicle, so how would this assault disembark? And the idea of packing a significant “amphibious assault” force into an area this small is absurd.

A single American HIMARS rocket contains cluster munitions that spread out over an area of several acres - and each HIMARS truck carries six of them. No anti-missile system is going to stop everything fired at it so any forces assembled on this rock could be obliterated by a single strike with rocket artillery. No one is stupid enough to mass troops this close together and this exposed.

And of course, what would these troops be assaulting? The very southern tip of Ukraine? There are no major cities, no valuable prizes on shore near Snake Island. And as already pointed out, it’s a very long drive up the coast if the Russians are trying to outflank Ukrainian troops near Odessa using the handful of troops they could pack onto this tiny island.

Are we to believe the Russian plan is to put their troops on transports, go west from Crimea about 170 km, then stop 30 km short of the Ukrainian shoreline to take a pee break on Snake Island? The entire idea is ridiculous. Daffy? Nonsensical? I need to check that Thesaurus again.

---

“The Snake Island Campaign”

The article in France 24 is one of the references used by whoever put together the Wikipedia page titled 2022 Snake Island campaign. Today is one of the very few time we’ll use Wikipedia as a reference - in this case as an example of how difficult it is to determine what actually happened. Here’s a quote from that page:

Despite being a small and almost unremarkable island, Snake Island has been described as strategically valuable, besides the symbolic value for Ukrainian resistance which the island attained due to the famous exchange between the Ukrainian garrisons and the Moskva at the onset of the invasion. Control over the island would allow Russia to establish long-range air defense, cruise missiles, and electronic warfare assets to cover the north-western part of the Black Sea and southern Ukraine, as well as help the Russian navy reinforce its naval blockade and control the flow of civilian vessels. (Wikipedia)

The phrase “Snake Island has been described as strategically valuable” certainly leaves the editors at Wikipedia a lot of wiggle room. Actual analysts who study military strategy generally agree that the island has no practical value for the Ukrainians. The Russians could make some use of the island but anything they put on it would be very vulnerable.

---

A quick bit about the S-300/S-400 missile systems

The suggestion of “long range air defense” is a reference to siting a system like the S-300 (or the newer S-400) on the island. Able to engage dozens of targets at once, the S-300 is designed to counter ballistic missiles but can also shoot down aircraft at high speeds and altitudes, and from long ranges.

The system can include different types and numbers of radars and launchers depending on need. A typical S-300 battery includes a command vehicle, two radar vehicles (one for surveillance and one for missile guidance), and six to twelve launchers, plus reloading vehicles. The vehicles are normally placed singly, in different locations, and can be tens of kilometers apart. The individual launchers can move immediately after launching missiles to reduce the chance of them being located and destroyed.

The idea that the Russians would put this huge, expensive system on a tiny, flat rock is simply ridiculous. It’s also difficult to take seriously the commentary of journalists who don’t realize this (or choose to ignore it).

---

Taking claims at face value

Per the Wikipedia page, here are the claims of equipment destroyed by the Ukrainians during the “campaign,” and what they claim destroyed each one in parentheses:

• 2 Strela-10 short range surface to air missile systems (using a Baykar Bayraktar TB2 drone)

• 2 Tor short range surface to air missile systems (TB2)

• 2 Pantsir-S1 medium-range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery systems (not stated)

• 3-4 Raptor class patrol boats (TB2)

• 1 Serna class landing craft (TB2)

• 1 Mi-8 transport helicopter (TB2)

• 1 Ka-52 attack helicopter (not stated)

• Moskva cruiser sunk (using Neptune missiles, but aided by a TB2 confusing the ship’s radar)

• Spasatel Vasily Bekh rescue tug sunk (using Harpoon missiles)

• Vsevolod Bobrov logistics support ship damaged (not stated)

The Ka-52 helicopter was, according to the Ukrainians, one of four helicopters engaged in a search and rescue operation.

Based on these claims the Ukrainians have apparently been making excellent use of TB2 drones. One wonders why every western military doesn’t have a thousand of them on order right now.

---

On to the Super Drones! The Baykar Bayraktar TB2

Bayraktar TB2 drone. Publicity photo from Baykar website. It’s not very tall, so the photographer had to crouch down to take this shot.

The Ukrainian military has been using Turkish-built Baykar Bayraktar TB2 drones - although the exact number they have is unclear. Back in 2020 a deal was announced to purchase 48 of them, but it’s unlikely all of these have been delivered.

The drone, manufactured by Baykar of Turkey, is an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) drone. Propeller driven and with a whopping 105 horsepower, it has a top speed of only about 140 mph but an endurance of over 24 hours. I’s designed for low speed, low and medium altitude surveillance.

The drone also has four weapons pylons with a capacity of 150 kg (330 lbs.), so it can launch things like small precision weapons and anti-tank missiles. It has a wingspan of about 40 feet and a maximum takeoff weight of only about 1,500 lbs.

For an idea of the size of the drone, here’s an image of a TB2 next to a Su-25 attack aircraft.

Shutterstock caption: Mykolaiv, Mykolaiv Oblast, Ukraine - June 30 2021: The unmanned aerial vehicle Bayraktar TB-2 and attack aircraft Sukhoi-25 of the Air Force of Ukraine. Photo by user Volodymyr Vorobiov.

[Side note: many stock images of the TB2 in flight (for example, on Shutterstock) show all three landing gear, or none. The no-gear pictures are, well, wrong. When in flight the nose wheel is retracted to give the optics a better forward view, but the rear wheels are fixed. Here’s one of the rare photos of one in flight. The good news is that I’m not the only person to buy this photo, so other people do care.]

Shutterstock caption: Bayraktar TB2, High-Altitude Long-Endurance, Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle. Bayraktar TB2 Unmanned aerial vehicle gliding through the clouds. Photo by user Spiffing Designer.

So the TB2 is a surveillance drone that can also be used to drop small, precision munitions, and it’s been used in several conflicts globally. They saw use in places like Syria, where several were apparently shot down using the same missile systems the Ukrainians claim to have destroyed with them.

---

A few words on kill claims in war

Few people study military history at the level of detail of comparing battlefield kill claims, and almost no one in the general public has any exposure to this subject.

Kill claims are always exaggerated. This isn’t necessarily because people are trying to lie - flying low over a knocked-out tank to take a nice, pretty picture of it is asking to get shot down. It’s also hard to tell the difference between “damaged” and “destroyed.” It’s very common for kill claims to be much greater than actual losses.

This topic will require a lot more discussion in the context of the current war, so for now just be aware that no one takes all kill claims at face value.

---

The Russians disagree with many of the claims

The Russians, of course, dispute many of the claims. For example, Ukraine says on 21 June they destroyed several vehicles and an anti-aircraft missile system, probably a Pantsir-S1. The quote we saw earlier was part of the second paragraph in the France 24 article:

Authorities in Kyiv said Ukrainian forces had launched missile strikes and drones from the coast on June 21, destroying Russian military vehicles, anti-aircraft defences and a radar system on Snake Island, a piece of rock smaller than 0.7 square kilometres located about 40km southwest of Odesa. (France 24)

We’re going to give France 24 a nod here for at least including the Russian response:

The Russian military denied the claims, saying its defences held up as its forces on the island intercepted all the Ukrainian missiles and shot down 13 of the 15 drones. (France 24)

The author has written an article that, for the most part, ignores the statements of its own sources. But there’s a method to the madness:

This ferocious contestation of the narrative says a lot about how important Snake Island is to both Kyiv and Moscow. (France 24)

Once again, the author is trying to create a narrative of the importance of Snake Island. The Russians disagreeing with Ukrainian kill claims isn’t “ferocious contestation.” But phrasing it this way makes it seem the island has much greater importance to the Russians.

Vsevolod Bobrov

Good old Wikipedia has a page about the Vsevolod Bobrov (the damaged logistics ship), and the editors of that page are more skeptical of the claims listed on the “Snake Island campaign” page. Here’s one of the references from the page on the ship itself:

U.S.-backed media outlet Radio Svoboda has confirmed reports that the Russian naval auxiliary Vsevolod Bobrov has returned safely to Sebastopol, without apparent signs of damage. (The Maritime Executive⁴)

The Ukrainians claimed the ship was damaged and on fire. The Russian navy released several photos of the ship docked at Sevastopol, and there are no signs of damage at all. Things like this tend to make me a bit skeptical of Wikipedia’s reliability, and of Ukrainian claims.

We’re going to look into ship losses more in the next article. There are a lot of confusing and sometimes illogical bits to the accepted stories on these ships, and going into why means looking at a lot of details.

---

The same pattern holds for most of the claims - the Ukrainians claim their wonder drones have been wrecking the Russian troops on the island, while the Russians disagree. The only evidence available to substantiate the claims are poor resolution images or video that may or may not be showing what is claimed.

What about Russian claims? They claim having repelled multiple attempts by the Ukrainians to retake the island, as well as having shot down over a dozen drones, at least two aircraft, and many missiles.

One thing is very likely true - the drones haven’t been nearly as significant as the Ukrainians claim.

---

What weapons are the Ukrainians really using?

Did the Ukrainians really inflict all this damage with some Turkish-built drones? Doubtful. The drones are a good purchase, but they represent only a tiny portion of the munitions aimed at Snake Island.

Both sides admit the Ukrainians have hit the island with Su-24 and Su-25 aircraft - and the Russians claimed to have shot down one of each. Per the Russians, the Ukrainians have also been hitting the island with missiles and artillery from shore.

The Ukrainians have also claimed they hit the island with 155 mm (NATO standard) howitzers, 122 mm (Russian/Soviet) rocket artillery, airstrikes, and drone strikes.

Snake Island is too far from shore to be hit with most howitzer rounds, except maybe for some long range munitions like the American Excaliber round. Excalibers are very expensive and it’s not clear the Ukrainians have even received any, but the island is in range of a lot of rocket artillery and they definitely have that.

What about the TB2 drones? The majority of the Ukrainian kill claims state the targets were destroyed by drones - which could only have carried a tiny fraction of the munitions actually used. A TB2 carries 150 kg of weapons, while a HIMARS system’s six rockets carry 550 kg of munitions and a single Su-24 carries 8,000 kg.

Since the U.S. never signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the HIMARS rockets are effectively 200 pound cluster bombs, whose individual munitions cover up to a few acres. Not many of these would need to make it through Russian air defenses to cause a lot of damage on a place as exposed as Snake Island.

It’s much more likely the majority of the damage was caused by rockets and airstrikes.

---

So what’s a reasonable take on Snake Island?

First, Snake Island is not a significant piece of real estate. It has no strategic value to the Ukrainians, and limited value to the Russians. Russia invaded Ukraine with 190,000 troops and have called up 300,000 reserves - but there have never been more than a few dozen troops, from either side, on Snake Island. It’s a sideshow in this war.

I suspect the Russians thought, given the limited value of air defense systems stationed on the island, that the Ukrainians wouldn’t waste a lot of resources responding. The Ukrainians, however, saw an opportunity to make the island into a propaganda win - they even released of a commemorative stamp.

So they used drones, aircraft and rocket artillery to hit the island repeatedly - and with such a small space to hit, and so few places to hide, they have forced the Russians to withdraw their troops.

Losing the Moskva looks bad, but emphasizing (or exaggerating) Ukrainian attempts at amphibious landings makes the Russians appear effective despite its loss - so maybe that’s a bunch of propaganda too.

In the end Ukraine has declared a great “victory” and news outlets like France 24 have amplified this message, telling their readers the island has great strategic and symbolic value.

A more realistic view of events is that Ukraine probably used large numbers of difficult to replace artillery rockets, and lost a significant fraction of their TB2 drones as well as some aircraft, attacking the island. It’s a large expenditure of valuable munitions to force the withdrawal of a few dozen Russian troops from a little rock. It looks like an impressive victory until we remember that there wasn’t much value in holding the island to being with.

The most significant event associated with Snake Island is the loss of the Moskva, which was a valuable part of the Black Sea Fleet. The Russians are being very tight-lipped about the loss and the Ukrainians are making a claim that’s difficult to substantiate, so we’re going to look into it in a lot more detail in the next article. For the Ukrainians, the loss of the Moskva is a huge addition to the propaganda value of hyping the importance of Snake Island.

---

Some final thoughts on propaganda (for now)

The article told us “Snake Island’s most significant quality is its proximity to Odesa” then the author proceeded to mis-locate the island (and even get the size wrong).

We’re told the island is potentially very useful for staging an amphibious assault (it’s not) or for placing a long range air defense system (also wrong).

We’re told control of the island is vital for preventing a global food crisis (also not true). With or without the island, commercial shipping is halted.

The reality of which side is winning (whatever that means for each of them) is independent of our own desire for a particular outcome, or our own view of the morality of the conflict.

Getting accurate information during a war is hard enough, but in this case a lot of western media is effectively just propaganda. We’ll be reviewing other claims in the future, and this analysis has provided some perspective on how out of touch much of the reporting can be.

Trying to unravel what happened even in a small, isolated theater of the war turned out to be very difficult, and a lot of western reporting is not just unreliable - it’s laughably bad. This is making the “fog of war” in Ukraine almost impenetrable.

1. France24 article about Snake Island:

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220628-black-sea-s-snake-island-emerges-as-crucial-in-russia-ukraine-war

Archived copy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20221003141436/https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220628-black-sea-s-snake-island-emerges-as-crucial-in-russia-ukraine-war

2. Crazy, foolish, goofy, illogical, irrational, laughable, ludicrous, nonsensical, preposterous, silly, stupid, unreasonable, wacky, loony, batty, idiotic, inane, daffy, incongruous. All of these apply.

3. This is what people who teach writing call sarcasm, which means I think the exact opposite of what I just said. This footnote is for the benefit of the France 24 author, who is clearly the thorough sort of researcher who reads all the footnotes.

4. Article on Vsevolod Bobrov:

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/despite-ukrainian-claims-russian-navy-support-ship-appears-unharmed

Archived copy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220516015121/https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/despite-ukrainian-claims-russian-navy-support-ship-appears-unharmed