Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

MontyB said:
The problem I see with a move in that area is that it forces them into a two front battle and if one fails then they are in big trouble.
If they can get across the river that spit of land should be able to receive supplies from Ochakiv and artillery support from the west bank of Kherson not to mention that it keeps Russian troops in the area rather than allowing them to redeploy, add to that the knowledge that all major roads from Crimea are within missile range and I think it makes sense.

But who knows what is going on as there are reports of them crossing the Antonivka bridge and the Russians have abandoned Oleshky, you know the old maxim "the first casualty of war is the truth".
Click to expand...

It sounds the Ukrainians are going for Crimea, but that is most likely a deception. The best thing the Ukrainians can do is to not letting the Russians to redeploy to Donbas. An attack south from Zaporizhzhia requires to smash the Russian logistics north of Crimea and in the Crimea.

Now when the Ukrainians control Kherson, they can turn off the fresh water to Crimea.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
It sounds the Ukrainians are going for Crimea, but that is most likely a deception. The best thing the Ukrainians can do is to not letting the Russians to redeploy to Donbas. An attack south from Zaporizhzhia requires to smash the Russian logistics north of Crimea and in the Crimea.

Now when the Ukrainians control Kherson, they can turn off the fresh water to Crimea.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't see how an assault from Zaporizhzhia would work without a major manpower advantage that they don't have, if they head to Melitopol then they have to not only provide enough troops and material to carry on toward Crimea but also to fend off attacks from Mariupol direction.

"If" it is true that they have made it across the river then I suspect they will continue east across the Perekop and up the coast.
 
MontyB said:
I honestly don't see how an assault from Zaporizhzhia would work without a major manpower advantage that they don't have, if they head to Melitopol then they have to not only provide enough troops and material to carry on toward Crimea but also to fend off attacks from Mariupol direction.

"If" it is true that they have made it across the river then I suspect they will continue east across the Perekop and up the coast.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of "if", but they can achieve it if the Ukrainians destroy the Russian supplies in the both around Mariupol and around Melitopol, but it will take some time before they can do it. It won't happen within a few days, maybe a month or so with smashing of Russian logistics

To cross the river will be difficult and costly. Attacks somewhere else and trying to prevent the Russian to move to somewhere else will neutralize the Russian there, the Ukrainians don't need to fight them, just to keep them where they are.
 
In addition to keeping them where they are. They must be isolated where they are attacks somewhere else require a long preparation to destroy Russian supplies, like what they did in the south and fooled the Russians about counterattacking around Kherson, the major offensive occurred around Charkiv instead. We talked about how foolish it is to announce where you plan to attack. The Russians and the media bought it, though.

What if the barrage of drones and missiles had been attacking the Ukrainian forces instead of targets that don't reduce the Ukrainian capability to conduct military operations.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
In addition to keeping them where they are. They must be isolated where they are attacks somewhere else require a long preparation to destroy Russian supplies, like what they did in the south and fooled the Russians about counterattacking around Kherson, the major offensive occurred around Charkiv instead. We talked about how foolish it is to announce where you plan to attack. The Russians and the media bought it, though.

What if the barrage of drones and missiles had been attacking the Ukrainian forces instead of targets that don't reduce the Ukrainian capability to conduct military operations.
Click to expand...

The only way to keep them there is to stay in contact otherwise the Russians will happily leave their conscripts to man positions and send their better troops east where they might make a difference.

Still I would feel much happier in this discussion if I knew what I was talking about, analysing previous wars is far easier than guessing what is going to happen in current ones.

:)
 
MontyB said:
The only way to keep them there is to stay in contact otherwise the Russians will happily leave their conscripts to man positions and send their better troops east where they might make a difference.

Still I would feel much happier in this discussion if I knew what I was talking about, analysing previous wars is far easier than guessing what is going to happen in current ones.

:)
Click to expand...

It is great learning opportunity. We got it right quite often after the WTF moments in the beginning of the war.

The Ukrainians can keep a smaller force around Kherson to keep them there and move somewhere else. Maybe the Luhansk region can be a good place for making it difficult for the Russians.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
It is great learning opportunity. We got it right quite often after the WTF moments in the beginning of the war.

The Ukrainians can keep a smaller force around Kherson to keep them there and move somewhere else. Maybe the Luhansk region can be a good place for making it difficult for the Russians.
Click to expand...

I we will know more once we know whether they have crossed the river or not, if they have gone across in any strength I suspect they will stay.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Yes, on the paper the Russians should have been able to dominating the skies. But that can also be a part of Russian military doctrine. Russia and earlier the Soviets military doctrine didn't focus much on close air support for the ground forces. They used their artillery to smash everything in front of them and then attacking in waves. The Soviet air power was more directed to hit air bases, ports etc. The paper mentioned how the Russians are attacking stationary targets instead of hitting supply lines.
Click to expand...

Air superiority did not help and would not have helped the Russians in the decisive phase of the war .
And, maybe the Russians are now attacking stationary targets instead of supply lines, because they have only a small chance to hit the Ukrainian supply lines and because the Ukrainians are less dependent on their supply lines than Western ''experts '' assume .
Ukraine is not Western Europe .And history learns us that the intervention in a defensive role of the air force has been given an importance one can legitimately question .
The main reason why the Soviets /Russia did not focus much on close air support for the ground forces is that the terrain where they were/are fighting is much greater than in Western Europe ( Ukraine has a surface of 600000 square kms ) and that the weather is an invincible obstacle for precise attacks of the air force .
 
lljadw said:
Air superiority did not help and would not have helped the Russians in the decisive phase of the war .
And, maybe the Russians are now attacking stationary targets instead of supply lines, because they have only a small chance to hit the Ukrainian supply lines and because the Ukrainians are less dependent on their supply lines than Western ''experts '' assume .
Ukraine is not Western Europe .And history learns us that the intervention in a defensive role of the air force has been given an importance one can legitimately question .
The main reason why the Soviets /Russia did not focus much on close air support for the ground forces is that the terrain where they were/are fighting is much greater than in Western Europe ( Ukraine has a surface of 600000 square kms ) and that the weather is an invincible obstacle for precise attacks of the air force .
Click to expand...

A large part of this is that we compare this war with that of the Gulf Wars, at the beginning we expected "Shock and Awe", what we got was piecemeal and inept, there is almost nothing the Russians did made any sense.

They then gave on the plan to bring Ukraine to its knees by cluttering it's roads with wrecked vehicles and decided to force Ukraine to surrender by stealing its washing machines and plumbing.

That failed once they discovered washing machines required Russian villages to have electricity and running water so they figured a WW1 reenactment was in order and turned it into an artillery war which turned to custard when Ukraine got precision long range artillery and counter battery systems.

At this stage the best thing the Russian military could do is raid the Kubinka tank museum for what ever will run, scrounge up a couple of full magazines for the AK's and turn them on the Kremlin.
 
MontyB said:
A large part of this is that we compare this war with that of the Gulf Wars, at the beginning we expected "Shock and Awe", what we got was piecemeal and inept, there is almost nothing the Russians did made any sense.

They then gave on the plan to bring Ukraine to its knees by cluttering it's roads with wrecked vehicles and decided to force Ukraine to surrender by stealing its washing machines and plumbing.

That failed once they discovered washing machines required Russian villages to have electricity and running water so they figured a WW1 reenactment was in order and turned it into an artillery war which turned to custard when Ukraine got precision long range artillery and counter battery systems.

At this stage the best thing the Russian military could do is raid the Kubinka tank museum for what ever will run, scrounge up a couple of full magazines for the AK's and turn them on the Kremlin.
Click to expand...
Given their situation ( a much too small force ) and the situation of Ukraine (it could not be conquered,occupied and pacified by the Russians ) what the Russians planned and improvised was the only thing that had any chance ( I concede: an insignificant chance ) to succeed . The key of success/defeat was in the hands of the Ukrainians .
An other Russian strategy would have worse results, much worse .
That the Russians took washing machines is totally irrelevant : every advancing and occupying army is plundering :the Allies plundered occupied Germany in 1945/1946 : they took away type writers,cameras, etc.
That the average Russian village has no electricity and no running water is a totally unproved claim . 93 % of the Russian households own a TV set .
 
lljadw said:
Given their situation ( a much too small force ) and the situation of Ukraine (it could not be conquered,occupied and pacified by the Russians ) what the Russians planned and improvised was the only thing that had any chance ( I concede: an insignificant chance ) to succeed . The key of success/defeat was in the hands of the Ukrainians .
An other Russian strategy would have worse results, much worse .
That the Russians took washing machines is totally irrelevant : every advancing and occupying army is plundering :the Allies plundered occupied Germany in 1945/1946 : they took away type writers,cameras, etc.
That the average Russian village has no electricity and no running water is a totally unproved claim . 93 % of the Russian households own a TV set .
Click to expand...

The point was that at best the Russian military is still fighting WW2, Putin is droning on about NAZI's, the average Russian soldier is more interested in what he can steal than carrying out missions, it's junior officers have little to no control over its troops and run for the hills as soon as the gunfire starts and senior commanders end up dying on cellphones because most of their equipment is substandard or missing.
What is in Ukraine is not an army of 2022 but rather a rabble of peasants circa 1222.
 
MontyB said:
The point was that at best the Russian military is still fighting WW2, Putin is droning on about NAZI's, the average Russian soldier is more interested in what he can steal than carrying out missions, it's junior officers have little to no control over its troops and run for the hills as soon as the gunfire starts and senior commanders end up dying on cellphones because most of their equipment is substandard or missing.
What is in Ukraine is not an army of 2022 but rather a rabble of peasants circa 1222.
Click to expand...

This rabble of peasants circa 1222 has conquered 20 % of Ukraine ( some 120000 square km ) and maybe only a repetition of WW2 is possible in Ukraine between a numerically small and a numerically strong army .
The Ukrainian numerically stronger army has only liberated some 60000 square km .
That there are serious defects on Russian side is true, but they are not that serious that they have caused the Russian failure,which is also not caused by the Western arm deliveries,whatever may boast Lockheed Martin and its media .
That Russian junior officers have no control over their troops and run away when the gunfire starts ,is another unproved Ukrainian propaganda claim .
The same for the claim that the average Russian soldiers is more interested into stealing than into carrying out missions .
About the cellphones ( mostly civilian ones, because the average soldier needs no military cellphone ) : I like to see the proofs that the civilian cellphones US soldiers use at war are'' better'' than the Russian ones ..
There are now 111,9 million civilian cellphones in Russia on a population of 142 million people . That they are not fit,reliable to be used ( for non military aims ) during a war ,is something no one will contradict . Thus the orders not to use them at war can not be attacked .
May I remind you that the governmental cellphones of Western leaders were also hacked by Russian spy organizations and by the CIA ?
But no one will say that they were substandard .
.
 
Last edited:
Would the US have done'' better'' with an army quantitatively as strong as the Russians but with weapons that were more expensive and which our media do label as quantitatively better because more expensive ? The lessons of Vietnam, Iraq,Afghanistan do not confirm this .
Would the Russians have done ''better 'with a quantitatively and qualitatively stronger army ? My answer is no ,as victory or failure did not dependent on the Russians or on Lockheed Martin, but on the Ukrainians .
Would Ukraine have collapsed without the (well paid ) help from Lockheed Martin ? Of course not .
The Russians needed the willingness of the Ukrainians to accept a puppet regime ,and there is no proof that this willingness would have been greater if Russian soldiers did not steal wash machines .
 
lljadw said:
This rabble of peasants circa 1222 has conquered 20 % of Ukraine ( some 120000 square km ) and maybe only a repetition of WW2 is possible in Ukraine between a numerically small and a numerically strong army.
The Ukrainian numerically stronger army has only liberated some 60000 square km .
Click to expand...
Yes but the Russians have been invading Ukraine since 2014 so they have taken 120000sqkm in 8 years, Ukraine has taken a month to recover it's 60000sqkm.

That Russian junior officers have no control over their troops and run away when the gunfire starts ,is another unproved Ukrainian propaganda claim .
Click to expand...

Umm to be fair it is a claim made by Russian troops not Ukrainian ones.

The same for the claim that the average Russian soldiers is more interested into stealing than into carrying out missions .
Click to expand...

Really, given the extensive coverage of the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan how many burnt out or abandoned American APCs and Trucks did you see on the side of the road loaded with washing machines, TVs etc?
 
lljadw said:
Air superiority did not help and would not have helped the Russians in the decisive phase of the war .
And, maybe the Russians are now attacking stationary targets instead of supply lines, because they have only a small chance to hit the Ukrainian supply lines and because the Ukrainians are less dependent on their supply lines than Western ''experts '' assume .
Ukraine is not Western Europe .And history learns us that the intervention in a defensive role of the air force has been given an importance one can legitimately question .
The main reason why the Soviets /Russia did not focus much on close air support for the ground forces is that the terrain where they were/are fighting is much greater than in Western Europe ( Ukraine has a surface of 600000 square kms ) and that the weather is an invincible obstacle for precise attacks of the air force .
Click to expand...

Yes, it is great to learn from history. You can begin with what the allied air superiority hampered German logistics and transportations during the second world war. You can also read and learn how the Israeli air force contributed to their wars in 1967, 1973 (they faced some problems with the Soviet SA-2 Guideline missiles until the Israelis received anti-radar missiles from the US) Even how the air component of the Falklands war contributed to the Argentinian defeat. The two gulf wars, especially the first one is a good subject to study how the air contributed to the final outcome.

All armies need to have functional logistics, without it. The army cannot move nor fight.

The WP planned to reach Rhine in seven days and the rest in additional seven days. Read their planning and read more about Russian doctrine
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Yes, it is great to learn from history. You can begin with what the allied air superiority hampered German logistics and transportations during the second world war. You can also read and learn how the Israeli air force contributed to their wars in 1967, 1973 (they faced some problems with the Soviet SA-2 Guideline missiles until the Israelis received anti-radar missiles from the US) Even how the air component of the Falklands war contributed to the Argentinian defeat. The two gulf wars, especially the first one is a good subject to study how the air contributed to the final outcome.

All armies need to have functional logistics, without it. The army cannot move nor fight.

The WP planned to reach Rhine in seven days and the rest in additional seven days. Read their planning and read more about Russian doctrine
Click to expand...

Allied air superiority did not stop the Germans from transporting supplies to the front .
And in the Spring the Russians had no air superiority,but still succeeded into conquering 20 % of Ukraine .
They would not have done better with air superiority .
Besides: I was talking about the defensive role of the air force : there is no proof that with air superiority the Russians would not have lost Kherson .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top