It will be interesting to see just what Russia's next offensive will shape up to look like - will they actually attempt some form of combined arms operation, or have their forces been so degraded in the last year that they will have to opt for "small solutions" as the Germans had to do in 1943? If they can only resort to more human wave attacks on a grander scale, I suspect they are in very deep trouble.

Equally interesting will be what any Ukrainian offensive will look like. I am not certain that they will have been fully trained up on all their new Western toys unless they delay several months. And if the Russian offensive bogs down, do the Ukrainians immediately launch a counteroffensive to try and seize the initiative?

More akin to their defeat in World War I to the Germans:

where their armies were bled white and crushed by numerically inferior forces who were better trained and equipped.

There is a report in the Wall Street Journal that states 97% (!!) of the Russian army is committed to Ukraine.

which seems literally impossible, but I checked it three times and that is what it stated.

97% of Russian Army Committed to Ukraine

A few more details on the latest round of EU sanctions on Russia.

TARGETS

Heard a report today on the radio that the ukes are killing 600-1000 Russians per day right now.

The commenter, whose name I didn't catch, said they need to kill 5000/day to stop the human wave

2/7 The armored vehicles are used for the cover, delivery, and evacuation of infantry. The enemy actively uses tanks from closed positions, while sheer numbers of enemy artillery suppress our artillery, allowing their groups to move closer.

— Tatarigami_UA (@Tatarigami_UA) February 16, 2023

4/7 Despite the overwhelming numerical advantage of russian occupational forces, Ukrainian forces in the area demonstrate superiority. A big role in it was played by the successful implementation of elements of the Western, NATO-like governance system - mission command.

— Tatarigami_UA (@Tatarigami_UA) February 16, 2023

6/7 Sadly, this is not always the case in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as it's not easy to get rid of the soviet-style command system entirely. A small soviet army can't defeat a large soviet army, which is why we need to emphasize the decentralized approach.

— Tatarigami_UA (@Tatarigami_UA) February 16, 2023

UPDATES

Eliminatus said:

---

I know I have been very critical of the Russian seemingly piece meal attacks in the area but even I will say they really don't have many options. What can you do really when you have a largely foot mobile force in an area under 24/7 surveillance that you cannot truly dupe with on call artillery just waiting for you to bunch up? On paper the answer is of course to use armor to spearhead attacks but we are now seeing f'ing field artillery used to pick off point targets. In addition to all the other anti tank goodies. Think that is one of the larger changes we have seen implemented on a grand scale. Then you mix in inexperience and incompetence and man, the Russians are not in a good place.

I am just trying to armchair QB from their perspective and I can't think of any feasible large scale options for them either with the realities they are facing on the frontlines. Can't really mass troops and can't mass armor. Lose/lose?

Which all goes back to that original massive miscalculation that took most of us by surprise I think. Russias inability to gain air superiority. Without that to harry Uke long distance fires….

So I guess the small squad level near suicidal rushes probably IS the best tactic Russia can use. Especially when you factor in the last variable of training and equipment.

Just trying to think from the other side of the coin.

Thoughts?

---

I've been lurking on this thread for months because I don't consider myself any kind of military expert. That said, I have to think that the Russkies could use any of those cruise missiles, drones--what have you--to punch holes in the front lines of Uke artillery instead of terrorizing civilian targets. It's disgusting to watch them attack civilian targets with military ordnance, then marching cannon fodder against military targets.

Horse with No Name said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

I know I have been very critical of the Russian seemingly piece meal attacks in the area but even I will say they really don't have many options. What can you do really when you have a largely foot mobile force in an area under 24/7 surveillance that you cannot truly dupe with on call artillery just waiting for you to bunch up? On paper the answer is of course to use armor to spearhead attacks but we are now seeing f'ing field artillery used to pick off point targets. In addition to all the other anti tank goodies. Think that is one of the larger changes we have seen implemented on a grand scale. Then you mix in inexperience and incompetence and man, the Russians are not in a good place.

I am just trying to armchair QB from their perspective and I can't think of any feasible large scale options for them either with the realities they are facing on the frontlines. Can't really mass troops and can't mass armor. Lose/lose?

Which all goes back to that original massive miscalculation that took most of us by surprise I think. Russias inability to gain air superiority. Without that to harry Uke long distance fires….

So I guess the small squad level near suicidal rushes probably IS the best tactic Russia can use. Especially when you factor in the last variable of training and equipment.

Just trying to think from the other side of the coin.

Thoughts?

---

I've been lurking on this thread for months because I don't consider myself any kind of military expert. That said, I have to think that the Russkies could use any of those cruise missiles, drones--what have you--to punch holes in the front lines of Uke artillery instead of terrorizing civilian targets. It's disgusting to watch them attack civilian targets with military ordnance, then marching cannon fodder against military targets.

---

Their guidance systems are not that advanced. They can hit cities easily, but smaller, mobile targets, not so much

BlueSmoke said:

---

Horse with No Name said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

I know I have been very critical of the Russian seemingly piece meal attacks in the area but even I will say they really don't have many options. What can you do really when you have a largely foot mobile force in an area under 24/7 surveillance that you cannot truly dupe with on call artillery just waiting for you to bunch up? On paper the answer is of course to use armor to spearhead attacks but we are now seeing f'ing field artillery used to pick off point targets. In addition to all the other anti tank goodies. Think that is one of the larger changes we have seen implemented on a grand scale. Then you mix in inexperience and incompetence and man, the Russians are not in a good place.

I am just trying to armchair QB from their perspective and I can't think of any feasible large scale options for them either with the realities they are facing on the frontlines. Can't really mass troops and can't mass armor. Lose/lose?

Which all goes back to that original massive miscalculation that took most of us by surprise I think. Russias inability to gain air superiority. Without that to harry Uke long distance fires….

So I guess the small squad level near suicidal rushes probably IS the best tactic Russia can use. Especially when you factor in the last variable of training and equipment.

Just trying to think from the other side of the coin.

Thoughts?

---

I've been lurking on this thread for months because I don't consider myself any kind of military expert. That said, I have to think that the Russkies could use any of those cruise missiles, drones--what have you--to punch holes in the front lines of Uke artillery instead of terrorizing civilian targets. It's disgusting to watch them attack civilian targets with military ordnance, then marching cannon fodder against military targets.

---

Their guidance systems are not that advanced. They can hit cities easily, but smaller, mobile targets, not so much

---

And I believe I read that they heavily rely on map of earth reading technology. So the second it changes due to war, it's not reliable unless they have updated satellite imagery that is 100% correct. Can't do that when thousands of artillery shells are being fired a day.

I have trouble wrapping my mind around what things actually look like in this war zone--how thinly spread are the forces on each side, how many layers of reinforcements, etc. In my limited understanding, it seems that one of these overnight missile attacks could be concentrated in one area similar to a naval bombardment of old to punch through the defenses. For example, what would 30-40 Kalibers + Shaheds do to the defenders of Bahkmut if sent there all at once?

Not much, TBH. Those would only be useful against concentrated or high value targets. They're expensive and hard to come by, so it makes no sense to use them against a few hundred to a few thousand troops like that unless you're targeting a huge barracks with dozens or hundreds of troops with one missile. Everything there is spread out enough that something like that isn't going to do enough to justify the expense.


ETA A massed artillery strike would be much cheaper. The problem is Russia may not have the munitions or tubes for it. Also, their accuracy sucks.

Anything within about 20KM of the front is reserved for artillery and rockets which are FAR more cost effective. At the front, targets are concealed, armored, dug in, dispersed, or otherwise protected to some degree or other. It is a waste to use a strategic strike weapon against them. Both sides know they are heavily observed by drones and satellites and radars so they don't concentrate too much and attract artillery fire, or possibly air strikes.

Horse with No Name said:

---

I have trouble wrapping my mind around what things actually look like in this war zone--how thinly spread are the forces on each side, how many layers of reinforcements, etc. In my limited understanding, it seems that one of these overnight missile attacks could be concentrated in one area similar to a naval bombardment of old to punch through the defenses. For example, what would 30-40 Kalibers + Shaheds do to the defenders of Bahkmut if sent there all at once?

---

Not that simple.

Imagine an irregular shaped rectangle with the top segment being 4000M wide and facing the russians aka the front where UKE defense line is. Now extend the long sides back 18,000M and angled out so that the base is 36,000M in length in which these two points is a Ukrainian Artillery battery that is constantly on the move but still able to cover that area within the shape.

If the orcs destroyed everything within that area with missiles (not really possible) and then moved into that area they would still be subject to drone spotted UKE artillery and thats not taking into account HIMARS.

Defense in depth. The 4000M segment theoretically could be expanded to 8000M, assuming ATGM range from each flank.

Whole lot of other factors as well. Terrain, weather, orc logistics to support advance, etc. As posted above, there have hardly been any missile strikes on military assets by the orcs.

There's probably a name for my irregular shaped rectangle but It escapes me at moment.

Score another one for gravity

Windows = Danger https://t.co/uB3bXJdeLs

— Special Kherson Cat 🐈🇺🇦 (@bayraktar_1love) February 16, 2023

Russian cyber-attacks peaked in '22, but without corresponding impact.

PHISHING

The tiny Baltic countries bordering Russia are understandably nervous that their allies aren't serious enough about a robust collective defense.

NATO

There is just no way. Please let them be this dumb, though.

According to this report Russia might use extensively its Air Force, despite knowing that the losses would be high.

This plan is so insane and desperate that it has a high probability to be actually true. Ukraine’s air defense would have a field day.https://t.co/CCWWQIEP2q

— (((Tendar))) (@Tendar) February 16, 2023

Why would they use planes now with all the western air defense being installed. That window has closed and will close further.

Today's SITREP.

trip said:

---

Why would they use planes now with all the western air defense being installed. That window has closed and will close further.

---

I would not be surprised if they did and worked their bombers dropping dumb bombs from high altitude flying over a bunch of balloons carrying reflectors to spoof the ADA, which we just gave them the idea after last weeks debacle. Throw in a bunch of shaheeds as well and alot of aid dollars could get spent quickly with or without any real effect on the ground from the bombing runs.

I would rather not see this tested and instead would rather hear of another airfield attack in russia in which a bunch of aircraft destroyed while all the sat pics remain classified, while we debate if it was drones, atacams, or lil green men.

Modern SAMs aren't going to confuse balloons for bombers

The issue is whether the Kremlin can ever eventually be brought to the negotiating table because the suffering has finally been enough, when their core strategy is basically to ' out suffer' Ukraine and to out last the West's patience to continue funding this thing.

docb said:

---

Time will tell how this shakes out. Only then will we know if you're smarter than the folks at the Pentagon.

---

Let's try to stick to tactical and strategic updates. The post you responded to provided an update from the pentagon. Russia is clearly early in the stages of their 'spring offensive.'

Dickdelaware said:

---

docb said:

---

Time will tell how this shakes out. Only then will we know if you're smarter than the folks at the Pentagon.

---

Let's try to stick to tactical and strategic updates. The post you responded to provided an update from the pentagon. Russia is clearly early in the stages of their 'spring offensive.'

---

Everyone who frequents this thread already knew that the spring offensive has already started. His post was just trying to stir the pot just like every one of his other posts. It's what he does.

Lotta shaky Russian ***** over a few Abrams tanks.

Shows how ****ty they qualify their own military capabilities.

They have lost over 50 T-90s and Russia is afraid to put any T14s in the field since they are untested and have a bad history of production issues. The T-72 can fire while driving but at limited speeds if they have had the upgrades. The T-72 has a range of about a mile while the M1A1 is 4+ miles.

The Leopard 2 also has a much further range than the Russia T72, getting a few Leopard 2s and Abrahms can be a game changer for Ukraine in the spring

Russian tank losses have been astronomical. I'm not a big believer in their tanks, training, or doctrine.

Still, I think in general the losses are from artillery/mines/anti-tank weapons/aircraft and there haven't been many tank on tank battles.

Horse with No Name said:

---

I have trouble wrapping my mind around what things actually look like in this war zone--how thinly spread are the forces on each side, how many layers of reinforcements, etc. In my limited understanding, it seems that one of these overnight missile attacks could be concentrated in one area similar to a naval bombardment of old to punch through the defenses. For example, what would 30-40 Kalibers + Shaheds do to the defenders of Bahkmut if sent there all at once?

---

That was the old Soviet tactic from WWII on of lining up their delivery systems such as artillery or Katyusha rockets and saturate a target prior to advancing.

Problem is, as we saw as far back as WWI - the target isn't always incapacitated. It also lends itself to counterattacks as all the systems are clustered together

*easier to have a single point of aim that 30-40 different trajectories all trying to hit the same target

It doesn't look their have been, Russia seems to keep their tanks to the rear and uses them on structures or to soften Uke line's before they send in troops. I haven't seen too many times of them using them in conjunction with infantry, mostly just on their own.

Seems most of Russian's tanks have been taken out by mines, drones, or hand-held weapons.

That's true. Both sides mostly lose tanks to mines and AT missiles, and you'd think that would lead to them being less important but really they are still critical because the protected firepower and mobility is very valuable on the attack. A tank can suppress enemy defenses and survive non-precision artillery when supporting an attack.