A British Army infantry battalion that has rapidly embraced drone warfare says the technology may reshape the battlefield, but it is unlikely to fundamentally alter the daily reality of infantry soldiers anytime soon.
The 1st Battalion of the Irish Guards, one of the British Army’s elite infantry units, has spent months intensifying its focus on drones after closely studying the war in Ukraine and receiving direct guidance from Ukrainian troops with frontline experience. From reconnaissance quadcopters to improvised strike drones, the conflict has underscored how inexpensive, adaptable systems can have outsized effects on modern combat.
Yet despite this technological shift, the battalion’s commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Ben Irwin-Clark, believes the core of infantry life remains remarkably constant.
“To me, it feels like 80% of the job of an infantryman is exactly the same and probably exactly the same as it was in a Napoleonic era,” Irwin-Clark said. Physical fitness, resilience, and the ability to endure harsh conditions still define the role. “You need to be fit. You need to be strong and robust. You need to be able to survive in the field. You need to be able to dig a hole,” he said. “That hasn’t changed, and I doubt it’s going to change for a while longer.”
Irwin-Clark argues that land warfare has an inherently “regressive” character. No matter how advanced technology becomes, ground combat tends to collapse back to its most basic form: soldiers fighting at close range, often in brutal and primitive conditions.
“It doesn’t matter how much technology you throw into the field, or how supremely trained your troops are,” he said. “Sooner or later, it ends up as two blokes in a muddy hole, slugging it out with a billhook or a spade.”
In contrast to air or naval warfare, where a destroyed aircraft or sunken ship effectively removes combatants from the fight, ground warfare rarely ends cleanly. “Once the tank’s gone, you just regress to the next type of technology,” Irwin-Clark explained, “and eventually to soldiers on foot.”
That continuity, he said, is not a weakness but a strength. It allows armies to layer new capabilities, such as drones, onto an established foundation rather than attempting to reinvent infantry combat from scratch.
Still, the Irish Guards are not treating drones as a passing fad. Of the battalion’s roughly 300 soldiers, 78 are now qualified drone pilots or instructors. The unit has established what it describes as the British Army’s first dedicated “drone hub,” where soldiers can repair damaged systems, modify existing designs, and even build new drones using 3D printing equipment—an approach inspired directly by Ukrainian battlefield innovation.
Drones are now embedded in the battalion’s training cycle. Exercises routinely incorporate aerial reconnaissance and simulated drone threats, and soldiers train on a purpose-built drone obstacle course designed to teach both offensive and defensive skills. The goal is to make drone use as familiar as traditional infantry tools, without allowing it to overshadow them.
Irwin-Clark’s perspective echoes views held by senior military leaders on both sides of the Atlantic. Major Rachel Martin, who directs the US Army’s Unmanned Advanced Lethality Course, has similarly argued that while the tools of warfare evolve, its fundamentals do not.
“Warfare is changing, yes,” Martin said, “but the fundamentals of warfare have not changed.” She described drones as “just another tool” suited to certain missions but not a universal solution. In many scenarios, older and more established weapons systems may still be more effective.
Her aim, she said, is for soldiers to see drones as one option among many, rather than the default answer to every tactical problem. “It may not be the tool given a certain mission set,” she noted.
General James Rainey, the former head of the US Army Futures Command, struck a similar balance in comments made last year. While acknowledging that drones are having a disruptive effect on land warfare and demanding urgent attention from Western militaries, he emphasized that war “will always be a human endeavor.”
NATO armies are taking those lessons seriously. Although future Western conflicts may not mirror Ukraine’s heavy reliance on drones—driven in part by ammunition shortages—militaries across the alliance are investing heavily in unmanned systems and training to ensure they are prepared to use them where they offer a clear advantage.
For Irwin-Clark, one of the biggest surprises has not been the technology itself, but how quickly his soldiers adapted to it. Traditional military training, he said, is often rigid and book-driven, reflecting decades or centuries of established doctrine.
“With drone warfare, you can’t do that,” he said. “The text’s changing all the time, and the types of drones are changing all the time.”
Initially, he worried it would take years for the battalion to become proficient. Instead, he found himself impressed by the speed at which soldiers learned to fly, maintain, and innovate with drones.
“The men and women in the battalion are incredible,” he said. “They’re adaptable, they’re tech savvy, and they can pick this stuff up really quickly.”
Even if drones do not overturn the fundamentals of infantry life, Irwin-Clark is convinced they are now firmly part of the future of warfare. The muddy hole may still define the infantryman’s world—but increasingly, it is being watched from above.
