MouthBQ98 said:
Personally I am very aggressive. I like to take the initiative and be on the attack. I'd say keep slowly giving ground in the east and causing as much damage as possible to the attackers. Their large integrated units and attack in the south and try to penetrate the defenses to cut off Crimea.
The issue is attacks are more difficult than defending regarding training and execution.
It's the training and execution which is the biggest problem in my book. As resilient as the Ukes have been, I have not seen a huge amount of extensive small unit or integrated combined arms attacks and maneuvers. Honestly, kinda the opposite. A lot of their earlier Fall advances were literally just single APCs or IFVs roaring up to Russian positions and Ukes dismounting and going full frontal attack. Great shock tactic for unsuspecting or undisciplined defenders but across a whole battle line....not sure of that will hold up.
Tanks work best in supported attacks. Even a few minutes of them outpacing infantry can be a deadly mistake. We know Ukes have been training on operating the new stuff but will that extend to actual tactics and platoon sized maneuvers? (
ETA: Not saying Ukes have no experience period but they are bound to have new tank crews that will probably not have gone through a formal armor school will you learn the true craft of armored warfare. Ergo, cannot be expected to fight their new equipment to it's full capability) Have no idea really. I also love the idea of pushing an aggressive advance, but learning mistakes will happen and the Ukes simply don't have the hardware to do that often.
The other side of that coin is the slow and methodical advance of course and that is something that I see the Ukes pursuing. Maybe quick lightning strikes as Russian weak spots appear but as a whole I don't see them using them that differently than what they are already doing with the tanks they do have. Time will tell though and the Ukes have definitely shown some Schwarzkopf thinking in the past...
