Yes and no. Ammunition is important, but from a logistics standpoint it will be much less burdensome than the food/water/fuel that must be provided to men on the field. Even in a hot war, an infantry unit is not engaged in full combat 24/7. But it never stops eating.

But autonomy explicitly decreases the human logistics burden too, by multiplying the effectiveness of each human.

Where in Civil War times you would need to clothe, feed, camp 100 people, now you have that firepower in a single soldier's weapon.

And when you remove the need for even a single human, you also remove their logistics footprint.

> Where in Civil War times you would need to clothe, feed, camp 100 people, now you have that firepower in a single soldier's weapon.

Which doesn't reduce the number of troops you need against a given foe with peer equipment, it just increases the durable equipment and consumables per soldier

> Previously it probably took several cases of mortar shells to inflict one casualty. Now that can be done with a couple of drones. Much lighter.

Do you think it's 1, 2, or 3 drones to get 1 kill?

Jamming and dying batteries make the odds much worse than that.

Look up how many drones have been expended in Ukraine. Then look up how many casualties there have been. Finally, understand that not all casualties ate caused by drones, and do the math.