Obviously this is just a binomial distribution, but another thing to consider I suppose would be if all trials are performed sequentially or simultaneously. If performed sequentially, on the one hand, you have a non-zero chance of not needing to expend the subsequent trials; on the other hand, it seems reasonable to think there might be a degraded (or increased!) probability for each sequential trial. If conducted simultaneous, similarly, it seems reasonable to think that that the individual chance of success is higher due to saturation of one form or another, but you are also guaranteed to expend all resources.

Point is just that it seems a little silly to try to reductively do these calculations - seems meaningless to try to compare without more information…

> but another thing to consider I suppose would be if all trials are performed sequentially or simultaneously.

Yes! That definitely came up while I was thinking about the problem.

I concluded that, in cases where you desire to eliminate (1) a particular target (2) under time constraints, only simultaneous attempts make sense. (And that this combination of needs is common.)

If instead your goal is to cause random deaths, you can ignore the simultaneous/sequential distinction, treat every drone as having a different target, and just say that 3 30% drones will get 0.9 kills for every 0.8 kills from 1 80% drone.

Both 80% and 30% are imaginary numbers, nobody measured it, so all the math is pointless. I've read that it takes 10 to 15 FPV drones to finish off a "turtle tank".