Smal localised tactical or operational level offensives as part of a wider defensive ateategy/approach; I would think it's conceivable.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
1. Ukraine’s losses of tanks and artillery pieces are irreplaceable — as it takes close to a year to train, each crew. Ukraine is getting small arms and ammunition, not entire companies of armor and artillery. It cannot be replaced, not anywhere in the near future, and they cannot train artillerymen or tankers in a few days or weeks. Once heavy equipment is destroyed/crew killed it's *gone*. To fight as a tank company, needs training and air superiority.
3. If the Ukrainian army tries for a risky counter-offensive push with 130 or more vehicles (with 4,000 troops), the Russians will rain artillery on them. It’s not wise to risk so much combat power that can be wiped out in a single battle. Ukraine needs time and they are trading space for time.
(a) In a defensive battle, 1 defender can fight 5 attackers in complex terrain, like a city. 5,000 Ukrainian troops in a city needs 25,000 Russian troops to clear.
(b) In offensive action, you need to slightly out number the enemy — preferable to out number defenders 3 to 1.
2. The Ukrainian forces have tanks and they do employ them carefully in numerous delay battles. These are typically hit and run. If Russia can secure their rear area, replace lost units, and rebuild their logistics force, they will be able to restart their large offensives. The goal is to bleed the Russians and keep hitting the fuel and ammo convoys to avoid head-on fights (except where terrain favours).
3. If the Ukrainian army tries for a risky counter-offensive push with 130 or more vehicles (with 4,000 troops), the Russians will rain artillery on them. It’s not wise to risk so much combat power that can be wiped out in a single battle. Ukraine needs time and they are trading space for time.
(a) This is not a computer game, you cannot respawn to start the game again. You can see videos of Russian troop concentrations being hit by Ukraine’s artillery. You concentrate, when you have an advantage and you want to press the advantage.
(b) Currently, Ukraine is not strong enough to fight in an offensive action at battalion strength (42 or more tanks) or brigade strength (130 or more armoured vehicles). They have suffered attrition to fight the Russians. A risky counter offensive, is not worth the effort partly because these valuable trained Ukrainian troops can be destroyed by the Russians, when they concentrate for a large push.
Last edited:
Indeed. There were atrocities on all sides. But don't forget the matter of scale: the Serbs committed more. That should not be forgotten. It doesn't excuse anything done by anyone else, but nor do the atrocities of others excuse the greater atrocities of the Serbs.
I've often seen this about other wars, e.g. the Spanish Civil War, where mention of Nationalist atrocities is frequently countered by mention of the lesser, less organised, & sometimes punished (unlike those by the Nationalists, for whom they were a matter of policy), atrocities by Republicans. Just because there is guilt on both sides does not necessarily mean it is equal.
I know people who served there. They witnessed first hand the effects of ethnic cleansing when they entered villages which had just been "cleansed" . Atrocities were committed on all sides but with the Bosnian Serbs and Serbs it was organised from the top.down. From the onset ethnic cleansing was also intended to create the fear which would make people leave.
Pentaprism
Member
To be honest I haven’t read much about what the small European Countries did or should have done against the Nazis.
What is crystal clear to me is Russia is not the only Nation striving to install Pupet Governments in other Countries. Megalomaniac Politicians are definitely not unique to the Kremlin.
If you are going to Discount every source that is biased in this war then there won't be much for you to read in this thread. What matters is whether or not they are factually correct
If you question his decisions, I suggest you contact him with the specific questions. You are assuming he has no further info beyond the picture, my experience has been that he does. He and whoever is working with him are sorting through huge amounts of information so it wouldn't surprise me that for the sake of getting everything listed he doesn't document everything on his website. I've found him to be responsive to messages and questions like that. I have also seen him recategorize losses and remove some entirely. If you don't have any argument beyond "you're biased", I would be prepared to be either ignored or embarrassed. I've seen him do that too.
wittmanace
Active Member
The thing is, there are numerous sources implying there has been a counter offensive(s), notably around Mykolayiv. This includes the Governor saying he has good news but isnt permitted to share it yet regarding this (2 days ago, live BBC interview). Ill look into it when I have the time, but I have heard the same rumour/implication about the same thing from a few different sources along the same timeline. Im also going to have to look back because I recall a British source implying or stating this also, whether it was an official MOD release with the term on the map or an MOD update point or similar.
In any case, a counter offensive there would be a mechanised ofensive one assumes? I dont see how it could be a counter offensive there without involving "massed" (concentrated) MRD style TOE assets ( MBT, IFV, APC, SPG, etc) egaging in maneuver...
Im also struggling to find anything at all about the supposed two IL-76s shot down with VDV on board...
A couple of clips from the Ukrainian War.
Russian attach helo climb and shoot attack profile for unguided rockets. Apparently it's an old Soviet Cold War doctrine.
And Mark Felton's proposition that Moldova, specifically Transnistria, is Putin's next target.
Russian attach helo climb and shoot attack profile for unguided rockets. Apparently it's an old Soviet Cold War doctrine.
And Mark Felton's proposition that Moldova, specifically Transnistria, is Putin's next target.
Could be a localised counter-attack or small Company+ sized force flanking by the Ukrainian Army that the Governor oversells (as Ukraine’s own propaganda)? It’s hard to tell.
If the Russian Army BTG advanced without flank security, that’s like really incompetent. But again, without a detailed terrain study of the area of battle, hard to tell.
I am just talking a wild stab in the dark, without real information to make a judgement call.
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Perhaps this related to @Feanor post #1,734. Russian need more man power for their rear guard. Perhaps this's why they are taking more Reserve from their National Guard or from their 'republics' like South Osetia (which before has not been call).
What if some of the stalled offensive are by design, due to Russia waiting for more man power as their rear guard. When you already advancing enough, you need more rear guard to watch your expanding logistic line and hold security on the area that already been gain.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Strikes me as a testament to the likely significance of the MANPAD/SHORAD threat. Pretty drastic measures just to stay at a safe distance.
I would hardly call it 'by design' if they are last minute scrounging up any spare body they can find from one end or Russia to the other. If that is by design then my 5 year old neice could make a better battle strategy.
Russia has been stockpiling forces and equipment for a long time and I would bet my last dollar that the day they started to build up forces around Ukraine they started planning their operations. If it only becomes apperant 3 weeks after the invasion after having 4 months at a minimum to plan it that "Wait, Maybe we need guys to cover the rear?" then it is pure and simple horrible planning.
wittmanace
Active Member
When I first saw these, I wondered that, but it also occurred to me 1) they have guided variants ( eg Ugroza tohugh ripple numbers would have to be looked into to discount this I guess) of these, do they not? If so, would you not use them in this case, negating the stated downsides and b) it occurred to me we are assuming the payload type here.... these rockets do also have other non-kinetic payload functions do they not? Like S-8TsM, OFP1 variants, S-8S, the chaff variants, and I assumed a number of decoy and transmitter variants also?
It seems rather remarkable that a) these (KA-52, MI-28) platforms be lobbing S-8/S-5/S-13 rockets..given the artillery proliferation, and also alternative munitions...If you are that unfussy about dispersal, just about anything fired from the ground art-wise would suffice and be better from cost/benefit? There must be an alternative motive for doing this I think. I dont know enough about the FAE warheads and their use in this application to know if this is a possible reason?
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Clearly we see their first planning does not work. This War of attrition being played out now, I don't think it is part of their initial planning. So by 'design' that I meant is more the adjustment they have to take on their planning. War of attrition after all need more resources.
It would be interesting to see what is in the direction of fire. I also wondered whether it could be empty fields if the pilots don't agree with their mission.
A prolonged war for sure, But in any event Russia from the start no matter what type of war they where planning should have had planned out X amount of troops to combat the Ukranian army and Y amount to police territory as they captured it. From what I can see they assumed the very best case scenario and made zero preperations for the worst case scenario and are now playing catch up, time they are wasting which is giving Ukraine more time to dig in, recieve more aid and start pick off the Russian forces in the field, Even as the new forces arrive it will only be piece meal which is near enough useless because its not enough from the get go to install and iron grip hold on the territory but rather a force so small that any insurgency or forces behind the Russian lines can pick them off.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Sort of like Nazi planning, what does the need army winter clothes for, isn’t the war over?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Potential reasons could be not embarrassing Ukraine for inflated numbers but if Russian losses are high, not much point in the US rubbing salt into these losses. Don’t want to embolden eastern NATO members to do anything provocative either.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,760
Well that's nothing new and is in no way related to current sanctions. But it's not an issue of passenger trust. It's an issue of post-sale support and the political risks that became apparent after 2014.
Sort of. The attacker also can choose the location of the fight and concentrate disproportionate forces against that point. Inferior forces will mean that your 1 defender won't realize his full potential, so instead of engaging 5 he might be engaging only 2-3. Superiority in air and artillery can change the equation, especially if you're willing to hit the city hard. In my estimate Russia has about half of the forces commited to this fight that Ukraine had available at the start, if you include territorial defense formations (somewhere between 200-250k regular Armed Forces, plus National Guard, border guard, paramilitary law enforcement element). Yet Russia was able to advance without having to field the ~900k forces needed to get 3:1 at the strategic level. If you fragment the defender into manageable chunks, and deny him the ability to maneuver, you can use 1:1 or even smaller sized fixing forces, and concentrate on a few areas of resistance at a time. I think this may have been Russias intent with moving fast, blocking major cities with their garrisons, and advancing in the meantime.
It's pretty clear they shouldn't. I'm genuinely curious whether they actually can't. I suspect they would have trouble concentrating those kinds of numbers of vehicles.
EDIT: Last thought, that 3:1 ratio comes from attacks against a pre-positioned defender. In a maneuver battle it would be different.
Last edited: