Jump to content

War in Ukraine, assorted opinions


mandeb48

Recommended Posts

On 8/6/2023 at 7:55 AM, TrustMe said:

That's what I think also Seahawk. The Ukrainian offensive has failed, the Russian's will then counter attack against the weakened UK army. 

The UK offensive has not finished, it is still premature to talk about its failure (the tree does not fall due to the last ax blow), in a struggle of attrition like the one that is taking place, win the side that has one more battalion than its opponent to send to the slaughterhouse.

We do not know what available reserves of both sides are, we do not know the ratio of losses between them,  we do not know some factor: morale, supplies, etc.

Anything can still happen, although I would bet that both will be exhausted after this offensive without the strength to get out of this impasse. More stagnation...

Edited by mandeb48
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 432
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

20 hours ago, TrustMe said:

That means at some point Russia will go on the attack in a similar way at the start of the campaign with mechanized divisions leading the way for the armoured divisions exploting the break through by the infantry.

A Russian offensive I think will be slow and methodical and not emphasize or attempt breakthroughs.  I expect they will try to keep friendly casualties to a minimum by using cautious tactics and increase the opportunities for Ukrainian units to surrender all across the front.  A 'final' offensive might not look impressive in terms of territory gained, but at some point it will entail more Ukrainians surrendering each day than are killed or wounded.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

A Russian offensive I think will be slow and methodical and not emphasize or attempt breakthroughs.  I expect they will try to keep friendly casualties to a minimum by using cautious tactics and increase the opportunities for Ukrainian units to surrender all across the front.  A 'final' offensive might not look impressive in terms of territory gained, but at some point it will entail more Ukrainians surrendering each day than are killed or wounded.

That's the Attrition way of warfare used by the US upto the AirLand battle concept, and what us Brits use as of today (as far as I know). The Maneuver concept of war is what the Soviets practiced. The idea was that after the initial breakthrough of the defensive belts, and a rapid drive to the rear then encirclement of enemy units to destroy them.

I'm sure that the Russian could use Maneuver warfare in this current struggle, it's just about finding out where the Ukrainians are at their weakest point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mandeb48 said:

The UK offensive has not finished, it is still premature to talk about its failure (the tree does not fall due to the last ax blow), in a struggle of attrition like the one that is taking place, win the side that has one more battalion than its opponent to send to the slaughterhouse.

We do not know what available reserves of both sides are, we do not know the ratio of losses between them,  we do not know some factor: morale, supplies, etc.

Anything can still happen, although I would bet that both will be exhausted after this offensive without the strength to get out of this impasse. More stagnation...

After 2 months of the offensive with little land retaken it's safe to say the offensive has not achieved it's objectives. 

Of course we don't know any details about personnel, equipment or logistics on this web site. Anyone proclaiming that they do are obviously drunk.

I do believe though that Russia has been on the defensive re training there troops ever since they started mobilising there reserve troops about 6 months ago.

Ding, ding, round two, Russia to start first.

Edited by TrustMe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

After 2 months of the offensive with little land retaken it's safe to say the offensive has not achieved it's objectives. 

You would have to know what the objectives were in the first place in order to make that a true statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

You would have to know what the objectives were in the first place in order to make that a true statement.

An educated guess would be that 5km of advance in farm fields looks too little for two months of a multi-brigade operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The objectives almost certainly included breaking through main Russian lines of defense somewhere and committing the reserves to exploit it.

Could it still happen? Maybe, but it seems unlikely at this point, though I'd love to be proven wrong.

Does it mean that some Russian offensive will take place soon? Yes, possibly.

Does it mean that it will be successful? Not necessarily, because it looks like neither side can achieve air superiority (or has much 'manned' presence in the air excluding CAS and firing stand-off weapons from far away, but mostly at the rear, not the frontlines) and breaking through the prepared lines of defense in this conflict proved to be very hard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

The objectives almost certainly included breaking through main Russian lines of defense somewhere and committing the reserves to exploit it.

Could it still happen? Maybe, but it seems unlikely at this point, though I'd love to be proven wrong.

Does it mean that some Russian offensive will take place soon? Yes, possibly.

Does it mean that it will be successful? Not necessarily, because it looks like neither side can achieve air superiority (or has much 'manned' presence in the air excluding CAS and firing stand-off weapons from far away, but mostly at the rear, not the frontlines) and breaking through the prepared lines of defense in this conflict proved to be very hard. 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

"Guess" being the operative word.

Its a better guess than to claim the intention was always to  litter mostly open fields with the  hulks of your western wonder-tanks. 

The Ukrainians are still 7km from the main Russian trenches (orange lines) and then there is another belt behind that one!. 

 

Screenshot_j247.thumb.jpg.8542292ad4ad12f71b63c16041d1d76f.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

"Guess" being the operative word.

Occam's razor.

Goal of offensive was either to:

- capture few kms of fields and forest belts that are not even main Russian defense lines at very high cost in equipment (photos and videos available) and most probably lives.

or

- achieve breakthrough through those lines.

First one is what every commander everywhere on this earth is told to avoid, second one is what they are supposed to do. So, tell me, which one is more logical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Russia and Ukraine have not been very successful in their assaults past the opening strikes and counterstrikes until last October/November. As long as the fundamental picture doesn't change, I expect no different outcomes, regardless of who's doing the assaulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bojan said:

Occam's razor.

Goal of offensive was either to:

- capture few kms of fields and forest belts that are not even main Russian defense lines at very high cost in equipment (photos and videos available) and most probably lives.

or

- achieve breakthrough through those lines.

First one is what every commander everywhere on this earth is told to avoid, second one is what they are supposed to do. So, tell me, which one is more logical?

Yes. Also there could be other, secondary, goals like to show the Western supporters that Ukr is "doing something" and, pretty please, do not cut our funding.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sunday said:

Yes. Also there could be other, secondary, goals like to show the Western supporters that Ukr is "doing something" and, pretty please, do not cut our funding.

Given the fact that the Ukraine is bankrupt lets hope they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Both Russia and Ukraine have not been very successful in their assaults past the opening strikes and counterstrikes until last October/November. As long as the fundamental picture doesn't change, I expect no different outcomes, regardless of who's doing the assaulting.

Pretty much agree. Ukrainians have manpower advantage, but they don't have any kind, even temporary air superiority enabling them to exploit that advantage. Russians have airpower and firepower advantage, but not to a such degree to  be able to enable their ground forces to freely maneuver even if they achieve breakthrough (which is highly doubtful also). Hence WW1 western front situation.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bojan said:

Occam's razor.

Goal of offensive was either to:

- capture few kms of fields and forest belts that are not even main Russian defense lines at very high cost in equipment (photos and videos available) and most probably lives.

or

- achieve breakthrough through those lines.

First one is what every commander everywhere on this earth is told to avoid, second one is what they are supposed to do. So, tell me, which one is more logical?

Guessing is guessing, WAGs or "educated."  Logic has nothing to do with guessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

...Logic has nothing to do with guessing.

Neither it has anything to do with your original answer, and yet it is there. :)

AFAIK you have served in military, so you know at least basic tactics. On which of two options above would you put your 5$?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

A third option that you didn't mention.

And that would be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly Ukraine wanted to break through. How realistic they thought that goal was, and how realistic it ever was, is anyone's guess. But it  looks like they were still hoping for it up to a few weeks ago when they gave up and committed more of the reserves. The goal now seems to be attrition of the Russian units at the front, since Russia is counter attacking and/or refilling defensive positions that are taken. Anecdotally it seems the ZSU has achieved artillery superiority on some sections of the front and they *seem* to be using that to good advantage. By most metrics they have made better progress than the Russian winter offensive against Bahkmut.

I agree with the general sentiment that neither side will be able to make decisive advances the way the Russians did in the first few weeks or the Ukrainians did in Kharkiv and later Kherson. Attritional warfare has set in and I think we will see this continue until something about the fundamental dynamic changes - perhaps military or political collapse by either side or Trump getting elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

Very.

No military on this planet will probe enemy defenses for two months and lose 30 percent (or more) of their vehicles in such a probing attack. 
 

This is the Ukrainian offensive, they have committed 150K troops in multiple directions and failed to make significant headway into any area (maybe Bakhmut but even then, they aren’t anywhere close to encircling the gutted out city). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...